.^.^^  ^*>,c'^5 


(   '    :,   ^       W  ^ 


g.;>&^:^fc--"c- 


.i4JC=-- 


or'VK 


'wt'\ 


Wf ,«; 


L 


^' 


Mi5ce)ldPineoMs'Tb\mp< 


Vol 


0 


^ 


4 


m 


%, 


I 


THE 


'facts 


IN  THE 


CASE  OF  THE  REV.  ALBERT  BARNES 

FAIRLY  STATED. 


ADDRESSED  TO  THE 


MINISTERS,  ELDERS,  AND  PEOPLE  AT  LARGE 


OP  THE 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  AND   CONGREGATIONS 


IN  THE 


UNITED    STATES. 
BY  MEMBERS  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  AND  SYNOD  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

PHILADELPHIA: 
1836. 


y^biK 


CASE  OF  THE  REV.  ALBERT  BARNES. 


Fathers^  Brethren,  and  fellow  Christians — 

Nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  Mr,  Barnes 
and  his  coadjutors  are  using  every  effort  and  all 
their  influence,  to  prepossess  the  public  mind  in 
his  favour,  and  to  prejudice  it  against  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  in  the  matter  of  his  suspension;  and 
this  with  a  view  to  insure  his  acquittal,  and  the 
condemnation  of  the  Synod,  at  the  meeting  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  in 
May  next.  To  this  method  of  proceduie  they  are 
encouraged,  by  the  remembrance  of  the  success 
which  attended  a  similar  course,  when  Mr.  Barnes 
was  bionght  before  the  General  Assembly  in 
1831.  Their  system  of  action  then,  was,  in  sub- 
stance, the  very  same  which  they  are  now  pur- 
suing. The  explanations  which  Mr.  Barnes  gave 
of  the  sermon  which  was  the  cause  of  his  prose- 
cution at  that  time,  were  published,  and  sent 
throughout  the  lenwih  and  breadth  of  the  church. 
The  sermon  was  also  republished,  and  copies  of 
it  were  distributed  largely  in  the  western  part  of 
our  church;  and  the  editor  of  the  Philadelphian 
issued  a  large  number  of  extra  copies  of  that 
paper,  containing  the  defence  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and 
a  crimination  of  his  accusers,  and  sent  them,  far 
and  near,  to  ministers  and  elders,  and  other  influ- 
ential individuals,  in  various  parts  of  our  land. 
Nor  was  the  enlisting  of  influence  in  the  favour  of 
Mr.  Barnes  confined  to  the  Presbyterian  church. 
'I'he  editors  of  the  Christian  Spectator,  a  monthly 
periodical  published  in  New  Haven,  embarked  in 
his  cause  with  great  zeal.  Of  this  periodical  Mr. 
Barnes  has  long  been  known  as  a  correspondent, 
and  on  the  occasion  alluded  to,  the  editors  wrote 
in  favour  of  their  (riend  and  coadjutor,  lauding 
him  in  the  most  extravagant  terms,  and  severely 
censuring  the  Presbytery  that  had  commenced  a 
prosecution  against  him;  and  they  issued  the  num- 
ber of  the  Spectator,  that  contained  these  eulo- 
gies on  one  hand,  and  censures  on  the  other,  a 
whole  month  before  the  usual  time  of  its  publica- 
tion, and  sent  forward  copies  of  their  pamphkt, 
in  time  to  be  distributed  among  the  members  of  the 
Assembly,  before  the  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes  should 


lake  place.  Success  attended  these  extraordi- 
nary efforts.  For  the  first  lime,  the  New  School 
party  had  a  majority  in  the  Assembly;  a  majority 
of  nine,  as  appeared  on  the  vote  for  a  Moderator. 
The  sequel  will  be  noticed  in  another  part  of  this 
address.  We  only  add  here,  that  the  majority 
obtained  by  the  New  School  party  in  1831,  they 
were  afterwards  able  to  maintain,  so  far,  at  least, 
as  to  influence  that  judicatory  to  discourage  dis- 
cipline, for  four  years  in  succession.  They  con- 
fidently calculated  on  retaining  their  ascendency 
at  the  last  Assembly,  and  began  to  take  measures 
accordingly;  but  were  grievously  disappointed, 
when  it  appeared  by  the  vote  for  a  Moderator, 
that  the  orthodox  members  present  formed  an  over- 
whelming majority. 

It  is  certainly  very  natural,  when  a  party  have 
lost  a  majority,  to  resort  to  the  same  measures 
by  which  they  have  gained  it,  on  a  former  occa- 
sion. This  the  New  School  party  are  at  present 
attempting,  and  are  doing  it  with  a  zeal  even  be- 
yond what  they  have  heretofore  manifested.  Their 
confidence  of  success  is  also  great.  Ever  since 
the  rising  of  the  last  Assembly,  they  have  often 
and  openly  boasted,  that  the  Assembly  of  the  pre- 
sent year  (1836)  will  reverse  all  the  most  import- 
ant doings  of  the  last.  To  produce  this  result, 
they  avail  themselves,  as  they  did  before,  of  the 
cry  of  PERSECUTION  against  Mr.  Barnes,  extol  his 
talents  and  his  piety,  publish,  and  distribute  in 
every  part  of  Ihe  church,  his  defence  and  his  ex- 
planations; and  bitterly  vituperate  both  indivi- 
duals and  judicatories,  who  have  felt  it  to  be  a 
sacred  duty  to  oppose  his  errors.  The  Philadel- 
phian now,  as  heretofore,  is  the  chosen  vehicle, 
for  sending  abroad  their  commendations,  and  their 
accusations  and  reproaches.  Some  articles,  in- 
deed,  have  appeared  in  that  paper,  since  the  sus- 
pension of  Mr.  Barnes,  which  have  so  outraged 
all  Christian  principle,  and  all  sense  of  decorum, 
that  some  of  its  former  patrons  have  abandoned 
it  in  disguit;an(i  thus,  by  overshooting  their  mark, 
the  editor  and  his  correspondents  have  rather  in- 


jared,  than  aided  the  cause,  which  they  seek  to 
8U8tiiin. 

In  civil  courts,  it  is  considered  as  highly  cen- 
surable, and  indeed  as  a  punishable  offence,  to 
endeavour  to  prejudice  the  public  mind,  against 
or  in  favour  "t  a  party,  on  any  iniporiant  liial, 
while  it  is  still  pendinir.  It  were  wel',  in  our 
judgment,  if  ihis  weie  the  case  in  ecclesiastical, 
as  well  as  in  civil  courts.  But  every  restraint  ot 
this  kind  has,  Irom  the  very  first,  and  invariably 
since,  been  utterly  disregarded,  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Barnes.  For  three  months  in  succession,  after 
he  was  put  ufider  discipline  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  In  1830,  that  judicatory  was  pub- 
licly and  vehemently  criminated  in  The  Philadel- 
phian,  before  any  member  of  the  Presbytery  ap- 
peared publicly  in  its  defence;  and  when  the  de- 
fence did  appear,  it  was  in  a  pamphlet  form,  which 
had  a  very  limited  circulation,  and  therefore  could 
hare  but  little  influence,  in  counleractinorthe  party 
statements  in  his  favour,  which  the  flying  sheets 
of  the  Philadelphian  carried  into  every  part  of  the 
country.  Hence  the  dis'.ani  Presbyteries  were  left 
to  elect  their  members,  under  all  the  prejudice 
which  they  had  imbibed  from  a  one-sided  view  ot 
the  whole  subject;  and  they  sent  members  to  the 
Assembly  pledjjed,  in  many  instances,  to  vote  fir 
the  acquittal  ol  Mr.  Barnes. 

It  is  clear  that  when  one  party,  in  an  important 
ecclesiastical  trial  not  yet  terminated,  resort  to 
publications  calculated  to  influence  the  popular 
mind  in  their  favour,  they  reduce  their  opponents 
to  the  alternative  of  eiilier  doinir  the  same,  or  by 
refusinij  lo  do  it.  hiznrding  the  loss  of  their  caune 
in  the  courts  of  the  church.  Here,  brethren,  is  ihe 
reason  and  the  hiiIp.  reasun,  that  has  <;iven  rise  to 
the  present  address,  and  lo  the  determination  to 
send  it  abroad,  as  widely  as  may  be  found  prac- 
ticable. Those  concerned  in  this  measure  would 
gladly  have  remained  silent,  and  siiflTered  the  ap- 
peal of  Mr.  Barnes  to  irn  up  to  the  Assembly, 
without  publishin'/  a  word  in  behalf  of  the  Synod 
that  suspended  him,  if  he  and  his  friends  had 
adopted  a  similar  course.  But  since  we  are  con- 
strained lo  come  before  our  fellow  ('hristians  and 
fellow  citizens,  we  shall  embrace  the  opportunity 
it  affords  to  disabuse  the  public  mind,  in  regard 
to  the  whole  case  of  Mr.  Barnes;  for  notwith- 
standing all  the  noise  it  has  inade  in  our  church, 
and  in  our  whole  country,  for  five  years  past,  we 
are  persuaded  it  is  not  correctly  understood,  by  a 
large  part  of  Ihe  community.  Articles  in  ihe 
public  papers  show,  that  it  h-x*  been  regarded  in 
some  places,  particularly  in  those  at  a  distance 
from  Philadelphia,  as  entirely  a  local  affair,  and 
a  mere  dispute  about  words;  a  petty  quarrel 
among  clergymen  in  ;ind  about  this  city,  which 
they  ought  for  their  own  credit's  salie  to  hush  up, 
and  no  longer  trouble  the  church  and  the  country 
with  their  unbecominif  brawls  and  bickerings  ; 
especially  that  they  should  not  continue  unre- 
lentingly to  persecute,  and   interrupt  the  useful- 


ness, of  an  able,  pious  and  devoted  minister  of  the 
gospel.  Now,  to  the  whole  of  this,  we  plead  not 
Sfuiliy  ;  and  we  think  we  can  show,  to  the  satis- 
faction of  all  who  will  give  us  an  attentive  and 
candid  hearing,  that  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes  is 
one  in  which  the  whole  Presbyterian  church  is 
ijeeply  concerned  ;  one  that  does  vitally  affect  the 
whole  doctrinal  system  of  this  church;  and  that 
the  belief  that  it  has  been  unnecessarily  and 
wrongfully  brought  forward  and  continued  before 
the  public,  is  a  belief  founded  altogether  in  error 
— in  error  arising  from  the  want  of  information  in 
many,  from  indifference  to  the  entire  subject  in 
a  number,  and  from  prejudice  created  by  misre- 
presentation, in  not  a  few — to  say  nothing  ofa 
large  number  , who  have  deeply  sympathised  with 
Mr.  Barnes,  because  his  errors  are  their  own.* 
We  purpose,  therefore,  to  give  a  succinct  narra- 
tive of  the  whole  case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  from  the 
lime  of  his  being  called  to  settle  in  PI  iladelphia  ; 
and  parliculaily  of  what  took  place  in  relation  to 
him  at  the  Synod,  in  which  he  was  suspended 
from  the  gospel  ministry — We  shall  make  a  few 
remarks  as  we  proceed,  and  add  a  number  at  the 
close  of  our  statement.  And  we  do  earnestly  en- 
treat our  readers  to  give  us  an  attentive,  impart 
tial,  and  patient  hearing.  We  are  going  to 
speak  of  what  we  are  intimately  acquainted  with; 
of  things  of  which  we  have  a  personal  knowledge; 
and  we  shall  speak  under  an  impressive  sense  of 
the  account  we  are  shortly  to  render  to  the  all 
seeing  and  heart  searching  God,  for  not  staling  a 
single  thing,contrary  to  our  conviction  of  its  truth. 
We  make  no  pretensions  to  infallibility  of  judg- 
ment or  opinion,  but  for  the  simple  verity  of  what 
we  stale  as  matter  of  fact,  we  do  feel  a  deep  and 
solemn  responsibility, 

Mr.  Barnes  was  an  ordained  and  settled  minis- 
ter at  Morristown,  in  New  Jersey,  at  the  time  he 
received  a  call,  in  the  Spring  of  1830,  from  the  1st 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia.  When,  in 
accordance  with  the  constitutional  order  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  leave   was  asked  to  prose- 


*VVe  are  aware  that  beside  all  these  classes,  tliere 
has  been  a  large  one,  composed  of  what  have  been  call- 
ed moderates,  or  peace  men — men  in  the  main  truly 
orthodox,  who  nevertheless  huvc  thoujrht  that  the 
errors  of  Mr.  Humes,  and  of  those  whose  doctrinal 
creed  was  similar  to  his,  would  best  be  corrected  by 
arjrumcntalive  writing  and  oral  discourse,  and  that 
f'iirthcr  than  this,  it  would  be  the  wiser  course  to  let 
them  alone,  and  nnl  disturb  the  pence  of  the  church, 
liy  attcniplinfj  to  subject  them  to  discipline — in  time, 
it  was  thought,  they  w.-)uld  probably  correct  fhcm- 
sclvcs.  This  class,  wc  are  ready  to  believe,  by  what 
ai)(>cnred  in  the  last  Gcncrul  Aspcn)hly,  has  been  much 
diminished,  within  the  last  two  or  three  years.  The 
jjood  men  who  composed  it,  found,  as  we  think,  that 
I  he  errors  which  they  hud  jud<rcd  could  be  reasoned 
down,  or  would  die  away  of  tlicuisclvcs,  were  rapidly 
incrcasina:,  both  in  iiuinhcr  and  in  boldness,  and  rcallj 
tbreatcnid  to  overwhelm  the  whole  church. 


^ 


cute  this  call,  theorranling  of  the  request  was  op- 
posed by  some  members  of  the  Presbytery;  ^ul 
after  an  ardent  and  protracted  discussion,  they 
were  found  to  be  in  a  minority  (Hie  vole  being  for 
granting  leave  "21,  and  against  it  12)  and  the  call 
was  accordingly  proj>ecuted.  Here  was  the  origin 
of  the  whole  controversy  in  regard  to  Mr.  Barnes, 
which  has  since  ensued — a  controversy  of  which 
the  detail  of  only  that  part  of  it  that  took  place  in 
the  Presbytery  and  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  before 
il  went  up  to  the  General  Assembly,  would  far 
exceed  the  limits  of  this  address — only  the  prin- 
cipal facts  of  the  case,  therefore,  can  be  stated, 
and  this  as  summarily  as  a  fair  exhibition  of  the 
truth  will  permit. 

But  before  we  proceed  to  this,  we  beg  a  par- 
ticular attention  to  a  few  remarks  on  the  loud  cry 
that  has  been  raised — proclaiming  that  this  whole 
affair  had  its  origin  in  a  s[)irii  of  persecution  and 
bigotry.  We  ask,  is  there  any  eviden(^e  of  this? 
Has  any  colourable  proof  of  it,  been  ever  fairly 
submitted  to  the  public'?  We  think  an  affirma- 
tive answer  to  these  questions  will  scarcely  be 
hazarded.  Yet  to  justify  the  allegations  that 
have  been  made,  there  ought  s'jrely  to  be.  if  not 
palpable  proof,  at  least  strong  and  plausible  pre- 
sumptions, that  they  are  warranted  by  the  facts  of 
the  case.  But  we  think  n  can  he  shown  to 
the  satisfaction  of  every  candid  mind,  that  every 
presumption  is  opposed  to  the  truth  of  these  alle- 
gations. At  the  time  now  contemplated,  we  do 
not  know,  or  believe,  that  Mr.  Barnes  had  a  per- 
sonal enemy  in  the  Presbytery — indeed  if  he  has 
one  now,  it  is  unknown  to  us.  He  was  a  stranger, 
his  whole  theological  education  had  been  in  ihe 
Seminary  at  Princeton,  the  favourite  institution 
of  those  who  opposed  the  prosecution  of  his  call ; 
there  was  not  a  single  allegation  against  his  mo- 
ral character,  and  he  was  rejiresented  as  a  young 
man  of  eminent  piety,  whose  labours  had  been 
crowned  with  a  remarkable  revival  of  religion. 
There  was  every  thing,  not  only  to  exempt  him 
from  persecution,  but  to  make  him  a  favourite 
with  every  member  of  the  Presbytery.  Then, 
again,  the  congregation  calling  him  was  the  oldest 
and  wealthiest  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination 
in  the  city  ;  and  a  number  of  its  members  were 
of  high  standing,  and  of  great  influence  among 
their  fellow  citizens;  and  ihey  were  likely  to  be 
greatly  dissatisfied  and  disobliged,  if  the  Presby- 
tery should  refuse  them  the  pastor  of  their  choice. 
In  these  circumstances,  the  opposers  of  Mr. 
Barnes'  settlement  in  Phihidelphia,  must  have 
been  the  strangest  persecutors  that  ever  existed 
on  earth,  if  it  was  a  spirit  of  persecution  that 
prompted  their  opposition.  No,  verily,  they  knew 
full  well,  that  they  were  exposing  themselves  to 
persecution — to  liie  persecution  of  the  tongue, 
and  of  a  powerful  influence,  in  every  way  in  which 
it  could  affect  them,  if  they  took  the  pait  they 
did  lake.  Seldom,  when  actual  martyrdom  was 
not  hazarded,   were  rnen  called    to   deny  them- 


selves, more  sensibly  and  severely,  than  did  those 
who  voted  to  arrest  the  call  which  was  prepared 
f  jr  Mr.  Barnes.  Why  then,  it  will  be  asksd,  did 
they  endeavour  to  arrest  it?  The  answer  is  ready; 
and  it  is  the  only  one  whicti,  with  any  show 
of  fairness  or  probability,  can  he  triven.  It 
was  to  preserve  a  good  conscience;  it  was 
to  fulfil  their  ordinalion  vow,  "  to  be  zealous  and 
faithlul  in  maintaining  the  tfulhs  of  the  anspel 
and  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church,  whatever 
persecution  or  opposiiion  may  aris(^  unto  you  on 
that  account."  Here  was  the  true  and  only  mo- 
tive, which  influenced  th'^se  who  opposed  the  set- 
tlement of  Mr.  Barnes.  He  had  never  preached 
to  the  people  who  bad  called  him.  and  lie  was  not 
present  to  afford  the  members  of  the  Presbytery 
an  opportunity  for  any  exaininatinn  of.  or  conver- 
saiioii  with  him,  either  as  a  judicatnrv,  or  as  in- 
dividuals. All  the  means  of  asceriaininor  his  the- 
ological sentiments,  on  which  they  could  safely 
rely,  consisted  of  a  printed  sermon,  entitled  "  The 
Way  of  vSalvatinn."  His  call  by  the  conorega- 
tion  was  chiefly  grounded  on  this  seruion,  which 
had  been  c-irculaied  amono  the  people;  and  on 
the  favourable  report  of,  we  believe,  three  mem- 
bers who  h.ul  visited  bini.  and  heard  him  preach 
at  Morristown.  This  sermon,  it  was  the  solemn 
and  deep  conviction  of  those  in  the  Presbytery 
who  objected  to  forwarding  his  call,  contained 
fundamental  errors — errors  affecting  the  very  vi- 
tals of  gospel  truth,  as  set  forth  in  our  Confession 
of  Faith  and  Catechisms.  What  these  errors 
were,  will  be  seen  hereafter;  but  we  sincerely  be- 
lieve that  no  pains  or  penalties  whatever,  could 
have  induced  those  who  opposed  the  call,  to  vole 
for  its  being  approved  and  sent.  The  authorship 
of  this  sermon,  let  it  be  well  noted,  formed,  in  the 
minds  of  a  number  of  the  Presbytery,  the  single, 
but  insurmountable  obstacle,  to  the  reception  of 
Mr.  Barnes  as  a  fellow-member,  and  investing 
him  with  the  pastoral  office,  over  a  people  for 
whose  spiritual  welfare  the  Presbytery  were 
bound  to  watch,  under  a  fearful  responsibility  for 
their  fidelity  to  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church. 

We  proceed  with  our  narrative.  Mr.  Barnes 
accepted  llie  call  which  was  sent  him,  and  came 
to  Philadelphia,  bringing  with  him  Ihe  nsual  cer- 
lificaie  of  good  standing,  in  the  Presbyterv  which 
he  left.  When  that  of  Philadelphia  met  for  his 
reception,  and  to  lake  measures  for  his  installa- 
tion, thos6  who  had  opposed  his  call,  insi-^ted  ou 
their  right  to  question  him.  in  regard  to  his  doc- 
trinal sentiments,  and  pleaded  truly,  that  Ibi?  had 
been  admiiied.  in  previous  debate,  as  proper,  be- 
fore his  adiiiis<ion  to  fellowship  as  a  member  of 
Ihe  Presbytery.  But  every  idea  of  this  kind  was 
now  most  determinalely  resisted,  both  bv  himself 
and  by  those  by  whom  his  cause  wa«  advocated. 
The  ground  taken  by  Ihem  was,  ihat  his  good 
standing  in  the  Presbytery  which  he  left,  placed 
him  in  the  sairie  standing  in  the  Presbytery  to 
which  he  had  come;  and  the  motion  thai  had  been 


made  to  examine  him,  after  much  and  ardent  de- 
bate, was  negatived,  18  voting  for  it,  and  20 
against  it.  A  proposition  to  table  charges  against 
him,  founded  on  the  false  doctrine  of  his  sermon, 
was  overruled  as  out  of  order.  A  proposition  to 
lemit  him  for  examination  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Eiizabethtown,  from  which  he  had  come,  was  ne- 
gatived ;  although  ihis  had  been  pieviously  indi- 
cated, by  some  of  the  majority, as  the  propercourse; 
and  the  final  vole  to  receive  him  was  carried, 
30  voting  for  it,  and  16  against  it. — His  installa- 
tion took  place  a  few  days  afterwards.  It  ought 
to  be  mentioned,  that  on  one  occasion  (it  is  not 
recollected  whether  it  was  immediately  before  or 
after  the  final  vote)  Mr.  Barnes  rose  and  stated, 
that  although  he  had  resisted  ihe  right  to  question 
him,  yet  he  would  voluntarily  make  sooie  expla- 
nation of  his  doctrinal  views.  Yet  in  doing  this, 
ii  is  believed  he  did  not  occupy  the  floor  for  more 
than  five  minutes ;  and  did  not,  and  indeed  in  that 
time  could  not,  make  any  explanation  that  was 
definite,  or  in  any  degree  satisfactory. 

In  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  in 
the  city  of  Lancaster,  the  last  week  of  October, 
about  four  months  after  the  installation  of  Mr. 
Barnes,  the  minority  of  the  Presbytery  who  had 
resisted  that  measure,  preferred  a  complaint,  in 
which  they  staled  it  as  a  grievance  to  themselves, 
and  as  dangerous  to  the  purity  and  stability  of  the 
Church,  that  a  man  was  received  into  their  fel- 
lowship, and  installed  in  a  congregation  for  whose 
spiritual  welfare  they,  as  a  part  of  the  Presbytery, 
were  bound  to  act  the  part  of  guardians,  without 
their  being  permitted  to  ask  him  a  single  ques- 
tion, relative  to  his  soundness  in  the  faith  ;  al- 
though this  soundness  had  been,  in  their  judg- 
ment, rendered  exceedingly  questionable,  by  a 
sermon  which  he  had  preached  and  published,  and 
which  had  been  circulated  among  the  people  over 
whom  he  was  now  plaeed  as  a  pastor.  The  Sy- 
nod spent  nearly  two  days  in  hearing  the  parties, 
and  in  subsequent  deliberations  on  the  case. 
Every  thing  was  conducted  with  great  order,  and 
strict  impartiality.  Mr.  Barnes  read  before  the 
Synod  a  long  and  elaborate  paper,  in  defence  of 
himself,  and  in  explanation  of  what  had  been  re- 
presented as  the  objectionable  parts  of  his  sermon. 
One  noticeable  incident  during  this  trial,  ought 
rot  to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  A  member  of 
Synod  addressed  to  Mr.  Barnes  the  following  in- 
terrogatory, and  tiK-arly  in  the  tollowing  words  : 
"  Mr.  Barnes-rr-lt  is  sintod  in  one  of  the  answer.^ 
of  our  Shorter  (/aiuihiism.  that  •  The  sinfulness 
of  that  eriiate  whefeinio  man  fell  consists  in  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin.  the  want  of  original 
righteousness,  and  the  corrujition  of  his  whole 
nature,  whioh  is  comiiionly  called  original  &in,* — 
Mr.  Barnes,  do  \(>\i  believe  this  !"  Answer — '•  I 
do  not."  'I'hns,  in  the  fare  of  ihe  Synod,  he  ex- 
plicitly denied  one  of  the  fninlainenial  doctrines 
of  our  public  Standards.  The  result  of  this  trial 
iii  lhu8  recorded  in  the  miuuleji  of  the  Syttod-^ 


♦'  The  Synod  having  considered  the  subject  of  the 
complaints  preferred  by  some  of  the  members  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  relative  to  the 
proceedings  of  said  Presbytery  in  the  case  of  the 
Rev.  A.  Barnes,  and  heard  the  parties  in  the  case, 
cone  to  the  following  resolutions,  viz  :^ 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia, in  not  allowing  the  examination  of  Mr. 
Barnes  in  connection  with  his  printed  sermon, 
previously  to  his  reception  as  a  member  of  Pre»- 
bytery,  and  especially  before  his  installation  as 
pastor  of  the  first  Presbyterian  Church,  gave  just 
ground  of  complaint  to  the  minority. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  complainants  be  refeTfed 
back  to  the  Presbytery  of  which  they  are  mem- 
bers, with  an  injunction  to  that  Presbytery,  to 
hear  and  decide  on  their  objections  to  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  take 
such  order  on  the  whole  subject,  as  is  required 
by  a  regard  to  the  purity  of  the  church,  and  its 
acknowledged  doctrines  and  order." — The  ayes 
and  noes  were  called  on  these  resolutions,  when 
it  appeared  that  on  the  first  resolution,  the  ayes 
were  30,  and  the  noes  8.  On  the  second  resolu- 
tion the  ayes  were  28  and  the  noes  10. — As  all 
the  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
being  parties  in  this  trial,  had  no  vote  on  the 
foregoing  resolutions,  the  large  majorities  in  fa- 
vour of  the  eon>plainants,  show  whAt  was  the 
prevalent  o  in)on  of  their  brethren,  after  a  full, 
fair,  and  patient  hearing,  of  both  the  parlies  con- 
cerned. It  must  also  be  noted  and  remembered, 
in  order  to  understand  the  subsequent  proceedings, 
that  after  the  decision  of  the  Synod,  the  preceding 
majority  and  minority,  in  the  Presbytery  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, changed  places — what  had  been  the 
majority,  and  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Barn«8,  r>ow 
became  the  minority  ;  and  the  minority,  that  had 
opposed  his  reception,  now  becante  a  decided  ma- 
jority. Does  not  this  prove  that  the  more  his 
case  was  examined,  the  more  untenable  it  was 
found  ? 

In  compliance  with  the  resolutions  of  Synodv  a 
meeting  of  the  Presbytery,/>rore  nata,  was  called 
for  the  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes.  It  was  probably  at- 
tended more  numerously  than  any  other  meeting 
of  this  Presbytery  that  ever  coihvened.  It  con- 
sisted of  59  members,  35  ministers,  and  24  elders. 
Tiie  variety  of  shifw  and  evasions  which  were 
practised  by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Barnes,  to  prevent 
the  examination  of  the  points  of  false  d^etrine 
contained  in  his  sermon,  we  shall  ruH  attempt  lo 
detail.  We  never  witnessed  any  thing  ljk»  it,  till 
the  last  meeting  of  our  Synod;  when  the  same 
party  reacted  the  same  scenes,  with  some  modifica- 
tions, adapted  to  the  circumstaiices  of  th<;  occasion. 
The  great  plea  was,  that  it  was  uncousitu-tional  to 
examine  and  pronounce  an  opinion  on  thi.<^sermon, 
without  tabling  charges  against  the  aulkor.,  and 
suhjeciiHg  him  to  a  regular  trial — a  position,  it  will 
be  remembered,  that  the  last  General  Assembly 
virtually  condemned,  by  expounding  the  constttuf 


lion  exactly  as  the  majority  did,  at  the  time  of  this 
trial;  that  is,  by  declaring  that  it  is  proper, and 
may  be  expedient,  to  examine  and  decide  on  the 
doctrines  of  a  publication,  before  the  commence- 
ment of  any  prosecution  against  the  author.* 
But  the  friends  of  Mr.  Barnes  entered  a  formal 
protest  against  this  procedure;  and  he  read  a 
paper,  requesting  that  he  might  be  put  on  trial,  on 
the  specification  of  formal  charges.  Yet,  when 
charges  were  offered  to  be  tabled) against  him, 
before  his  installation,  his  friends,  then  a  ma- 
jority, overruled  the  proposition.  But  the  Sy- 
nod having  now  expressly  enjoined  "  the  Pres- 
bytery to  hear  and  decide  on  their  objections 
[those  of  the  complainants]  to  the  orthodoxy  of  the 
sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  take  such  order  on 
the  whole  subject  as  is  required  by  a  regard  to  the 
purity  of  the  Church,  and  its  acknowledged  doc- 
trines and  order,"  a  strict  obedience  to  this  injunc- 
tion was  impracticable,  without  examining  and 
deciding  on  the  orthodoxy  of  this  publication. 
Whether  a  prosecution  of  the  author  should,  or 
should  not,  be  commenced,  was  to  be  decided 
afterwards.  But  the  friends  of  Mr.  Barnes,  when 
it  was  ultimately  determined  to  examine  the  ser- 
mon as  the  primary  proceeding,  declared  they 
would  neither  speak  nor  vote  on  the  case;  and  Mr. 
Barnes  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  withdraw,  al- 
though earnestly  requested  to  remain,  and  to  give 
every  explanation  he  might  think  proper,  on  any 
part  of  his  sermon,  as  it  passed  under  review — 
but  he  was  inflexible,  and  left  the  Presbytery. 

We  shall  now  give  the  result  of  the  scrutiny 
into  the  orthodoxy  of  this  far  famed  sermon  ;  and 
we  do  hope,  although  the  document  is  of  consider- 
able length,  that  our  readers  will  do  themselves, 
as  well  as  us,  the  justice,  to  inspect  narrowly  every 
article,  point  by  point,  and  judge  for  themselves, 
whether  it  be  possible  to  reconcile  the  fairly 
quoted  passages  of  Mr.  Barnes'  discourse,  with 
the  quotations  from  the  doctrinal  Standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  with  which  they  are  con- 
trasted— to  see  and  judge,  not  merely  whether  the 
quotations  do  not  differ,  but  whether  they  are  not 
directly  opposite  and  contradictory,  and  this  on  vi- 
tal and  fundamental  points.  The  final  decision 
was  as  follows  viz- 

FINAL   DECISION. 

"The  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  agreerbly  to 
the  direction  of  the  Synod  at  (heir  recent  meeting 
in  Lancaster,  having  considered  the>ermon  of  the 
Revd.  Albert  Barnes,  entitled  the  Way  of  Salva- 
tion, are  of  the  opinion  that  it  contains  specula- 
lions  of  dangerous  tendency,  on  some  of  the  prin- 
cipal points  in  Christian  theology,  and  ought  not 
therefore    to    be   sanctioned    as   expressing   that 


*  As  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly  are  not  yet  pub- 
lished,  we  cannot  give  llie  very  words  ot  the  decision; 
but  its  purport  we  arc  confident  we  have  given  cor- 
ructly. 


view  of  the  great  truths  of  God's  word,  which  the 
Presbyterian  Church  has  uniformly  adopted,  and 
which  is  exhibited  in  their  authorised  Confession 
of  Faith. 

Tn  stating  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  the  au- 
thor employs  a  phraseology  which  is  calculated 
to  mislead,  and  which  appears  evidently  to  con- 
flict with  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church. 

1.  He  denies  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  re- 
ponsible  or  answerable  for  Adam's  first  sin, 
which  he  committed  as  the  federal  head  of  his 
race.  Thus,  p.  6,  "  Christianity  does  not  charge 
on  men  crimes  of  which  they  are  not  guilty.  It 
does  not  say,  as  I  suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held 
to  be  personally  answerable  for  the  transgressions  of 
Adam,  or  of  any  other  man,''^ 

Although  the  word  transgsessions  is  here  used 
plurally,  yet  it  is  evident  from  the  whole  tenor  of 
this  division  of  the  discourse,  that  the  prime  sin 
of  Adam,  which  constituted  his  apostacy  from 
God,  is  meant.  Again,  he  says,  p.  7,  "Neither 
the  facts,  nor  any  proper  inference  from  the  facts 
affirm,  that  I  am  in  either  case  personally  responsi- 
ble for  ivhat  another  man  (referinj  to  Adam)  did 
before  I  had  an  existence.''^  And  he  explicitly  de- 
clares, that  if  God  had  charged  upon  mankind 
such  a  responsibility,  it  would  have  been  clearly 
unjust,  vide  p.  6.  The  doctrine  of  responsibility 
here  impugned  is  clearly  expressed.  Ccn.  of  F. 
chap.  vi.  6.  "  Every  sin,  both  original  and  actoal, 
being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous  law  of  God 
and  contrary  thereunto,  doth  in  its  own  nature 
bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound 
over  to  the  wrath  of  God  and  curse  of  the  law,  aad 
so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries  spirit- 
ual, temporal  and  eternal." 

2.  In  accordance  with  the  above  doctrine,  that 
mankind  are  not  responsible  for  Adam's  sin,  he 
affirms,  p.  7,  that  "Christianity  affirms  the  fact, 
that  in  connection  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  as  a 
result,  all  moraUagents  will  sin,  and  sinning  will 
die."  And  then  proceeds  to  explain  the  principle 
upon  which  the  universality  of  sin  is  to  be  ac- 
counted for,  by  reprevsenling  it  to  be  the  reault  of 
Adam's  sin,  in  the  same  sense,  as  the  misery  of  a 
drunkard's  family  is  the  result  of  his  intempe- 
rance. Here  it  would  seem,  the  author  mnintains 
that  the  same  rt'lationship  subsists  between  every 
man  and  his  family,  as  subsisted  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity  ;  that  the  same  principle  of  mo- 
ral government  applies  to  both  cases  alike,  or  in 
other  words,  that  mankind  hold  no  other  relation- 
ship to  Auam,  than  that  of  children  to  a  natural 
progenitor. 

The  public  federal  or  rppresentaiive  character  of 
Adam  is  thus  denied,  contrary  to  the  explicit 
statement  in  the  answer  to  the  22  Q.  of  Larg.  Cat. 
'*The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam  as  a  pub- 
lic person,  not  for  himself  only,  but  for  his  pos- 
terity ;  all  mankind  descending  from  him  t>y  ordi- 


6 


nary  generation  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him, 
in  that  first  transgression." 

3.  He  declares,  p.  7.  that  "  the  notion  of  imput- 
ing 9in  is  an  invention  of  modern  limes,"  contrary 
to  Con.  of  F.  Chap.  vi.  3,  "They  being  the  root 
of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed, 
and  the  same  deaih  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature 
conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descending  from 
them  by  ordinary  generation." 

4.  In  p.  5,  he  admits  that  his  language  on  the 
subject  of  orijrinal  sin  differs  from  that  used  by  the 
Confession  of  Faith  on  the  same  subject,  and 
then  accounts  for  this  difference,  on  the  ground  of 
the  difficulty  of  affixing  any  clear  and  definite 
meaning  to  the  expresj,ion  "  we  sinned  in  him  and 
fell  toilhhim."  This  expression  he  considers,  as 
far  as  it  is  capable  of  interpretation,  as  "  intended 
to  convey  the  idea,  not  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  im- 
puted to  us,  or  set  over  to  our  account,  but  that 
there  was  a  personal  identity  constituted  between 
Adam  and  his  posterity,  so  that  it  was  really  our 
act,  and  ours  onhj,  after  all,  that  is  chargeable  on 
us. 

The  whole  of  this  statement  is  exceedingly  in- 
cautious and  improper.  The  language  \  the 
Confession  of  Faith  on  one  of  the 'cardinal  doc- 
trines is  held  up  as  obscure  and  unintelligible,  or, 
if  possessing  any  meaning,  as  expressing  an  ab- 
surdity. The  framcrs  of  this  confession  ate 
charged  with  the  absurdity  of  maintaining  the 
personal  identity  between  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
when  their  language  conveys  no  more  than  a 
federal  or  representative  relationship.  This  whole 
view  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  is,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Presbytery,  obscure,  perplexed, 
fruitful  of  dangerous  consequences,  and  therefore, 
censurable. 

The  statements  of  this  sermon  on  the  doctrine 
of  Atonement,  are  also,  in  the  opinion  of  Presby- 
tery, in  some  important  features,  erroneous,  and 
contrary  to  the  orthodox  views. 

I.  At  p.  11.  He  says  "  this  atonement  was  for 
all  men.  It  was  an  offering  made  for  the  race.  It 
had  not  respect  so  much  to  individuals,  as  to  the 
law  and  perfections  of  God.  It  was  an  opening 
of  the  way  of  pardon,  a  making  forgiveness  con"^ 
sisteiit,  a  preservation  of  truth,  a  rnagnifyinsj  of 
the  law,  and  had  no  particular  reference  to  any 
class  of  men." 

Here  it  is  denied  that  tlie  atonem-^nt  had  any 
special  relation  to  tlie  elect,  which  it  had  not  also 
to  the  non-elect.  IJui  if  it  be  true  that  the  atone- 
ment offered  by  ("hrist.  had  no  "respect  to  indi- 
viduals," "no  particular  relerence  to  any  class 
of  men,"  upon  what  principle  can  it  be  regarded 
as  a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  for  the  sins  of 
rnen  ?  or  in  what  proper  sense  ran  (Christ  be  con- 
sidered as  a  vicarious  sacrifice  ?  unless  the  atone- 
ment he  a  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  individuals. 
upon  what  principle  can  it  open  the  way  of  par- 
don, make  forgiveness  consistent,  preserve  truth 
or   majjnify   the  law?     The  special  reference  ol 


the  atonement  to  a  chosen  people,  in  opposition 
to  this  view,  is  taught  Con.  of  F.  cap.  viii.  5. 
"  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and 
sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he,  through  the  Eter- 
nal Spirit,  once  offered  up  unto  God,  hath  fully 
satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father,  and  purchased 
not  only  reconciliation,  but  an  everlasting  inherit- 
ance in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for  all  those 
whom  the  Father  had  given  unto  him."  Again, 
in  answer  to  Q,  44  L.  C.  "  Christ  executeth  the 
office  of  a  Priest  in  his  once  offering  himself  a 
sacrifice  without  spot  to  God,  to  be  zT  reconcilia- 
tion for  the  sins  of  his  people,"  &c. 

2.  At  p.  11.  He  says  "  the  atonement  of  itself 
secured  the  salvation  of  no  one;"  and  again  "The 
atonement  secured  the  salvation  of  no  olie,  except 
as  God  had  promised  his  Son  that  he  should  see 
of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  except  on  the  con- 
dition of  repentance  and  faith."  This  language 
is  incautious  and  calculated  to  mislead;  as  it 
seems  to  imply  that  the  atonement  of  itself  does 
not  secure  its  own  application,  and  therefore  may, 
by  possibility,  fail  in  its  design.  It  is  improper 
to  suspend  its  eflicacy  upon  conditions,  when  the 
conditions  themselves  are  the  results  of  its  effi- 
cacy, see  Con.  of  F.  chap.  viii.  8.  "  To  all  those 
for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  redemption,  he 
doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  commu- 
nicate the  same  ;  making  intercession  for  them, 
and  revealing  unto  them,  in  and  by  the  word,  the 
mysteries  of  salvation ;  effectually  persuading 
them  by  his  Spirit  to  believe  and  obey,"  &c. 

3.  At  p.  10.  He  unequivocally  denies  that 
Christ  endured  the  penalty  of  the  law.  "  He  did 
not  indeed  endure  the  penalty  of  the  law,  for  his 
sufferings  were  not  eternal,  nor  did  he  endure  re- 
morse of  conscience;  but  he  endured  so  much 
suffering,  bore  so  much  agony,  that  the  Father 
was  pleased  to  accept  of  it,  in  the  place  of  the 
eternal  torments  of  all  that  should  be  saved." 
Here  it  seems  to  be  inculcated  that  Christ  did  not 
satisfy  the  precise  claims  which  a  violated  law 
had  upon  the  sinner,  but  that  he  did  what  might 
be  considered  a  substitute  for  such  satisfaction; 
or  it  is  implied  that  God  remitted  or  waived  the 
original  claim,  and  accepted  of  something  less. 
And  that  this  is  the  sentiment  of  the  aullior,  is 
evident  from  his  language  p.  11.  "Christ's  suf- 
ferings were  severe,  more  severe  than  those  of 
any  mortal  before  or  since  ;  but  they  bore,  do  far 
as  we  can  see,  only  a  very  distant  resemblance  to 
the  pains  of  hell,  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law. 
Nor  is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  the  sufferings 
of  a/cti'  Aour.i,  however  severe,  could  equal  pains, 
thoufjh  far  less  intense,  eternally  prolonged.  Still 
less  that  the  sufferings  of  human  natuie  in  a  sin- 
gle instance,  for  the  divine  nature  could  not  suf- 
fer, should  be  equal  to  the  eternal  pain  of  many 
millions."  Here  it  is  affirmed  that  Christ  was 
not  capable  of  enduring  that  penalty  which  the 
justice  of  God  had  exacted  of  the  sinner,  that  his 
sufferings  bore  a  very  distant  reaeixtblance  to  it. 


and  by  consequence  that  the  penalty  of  the  law 
has  been  either  relaxed  or  ia  yet  unpaid,  and  that 
the  justice  of  God  has  waived  its  original  demand, 
or  is  yet  unsatisfied. 

The  whole  of  this  lanjuage  seems  derogatory 
to  Christ  as  an  all  sufficient  Redeemer ;  it  judges 
of  the  human  nature  of  Christ  as  if  it  were  a  com- 
mon human  nature,  it  leaves  out  of  view  the  infi- 
nite support  which  the  divine  nature  was  capable 
of  imparting  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and 
is  very  different  from  the  view  of  this  subject 
given  by  the  framers  of  our  standards,  in  the  an- 
swer to  the  38  Q,  of  L.  C.  "It  was  requisite 
that  the  Mediator  should  be  God,  that  he  might 
sustain  and  keep  the  human  nature  from  sinking 
under  the  infinite  wrath  of  God,  and  the  power  of 
death;  give  worth  and  efficacy  to  his  sufTerings, 
obedience  and  intercession  ;  and  to  satisfy  God's 
justice,"  &c.  &c. 

In  discoursing  on  human  ability,  the  sermon 
contains  expressions  which  do  not  seem  to  be 
well  judged.  In  p.  14,  it  is  said,  "it  is  not  to 
any  want  of  physical  strength  that  this  rejection 
is  owing,  for  men  have  power  enough  in  them- 
selves, to  hate  both  God  and  their  fellow  men, 
and  it  requires  less  physical  power  to  love  God 
than  to  hate  him  ;"  and  on  the  same  page  he  re- 
presents man's  inability  as  solely  in  the  will ;  and 
on  p.  30,  that  men  are  not  saved  simply  because 
they  will  not  be  saved.  Here  physical  ability  is 
represented  as  competent  to  the  performance  of  a 
moral  action,  which  is  an  improper  application  of 
terms,  and  human  inability  as  resulting  merely 
from  the  will,  and  not  from  total  depravity,  which 
is  contrary  to  Confession  Faith, chap.  vi.  4.  "  From 
this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly 
indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed 
all  actual  transgressions,"  and  Confession  of 
Faith,  chap.  ix.  3.  "  Man,  by  his  fall, into  a  state 
of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any 
spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation,  so,  as  a 
natural  man  being  altogether  averse  from  that 
which  is  good,  and  dead  to  sin,  is  not  able  by  his 
own  sirpnirih.  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare 
himself  tiif-re-unlo." 

Still  furilier,  the  language  of  the  sermon,  on 
the  subject  of  conformity  to  the  standards  of  the 
church,  if  sanctioned,  would  give  to  every  indivi- 
dual, after  adopting  these  standards,  the  liberty  of 
dissenting  from  them  as  much,  and  as  often,  as  he 
might  desire.  Thus  p.  6  he  says,  "  It  is  not  de- 
nied that  this  language  varies  from  the  statements 
which  are  often  made  on  thi.s  subject,  and  from 
the  o|)inion  which  has  been  entertained  by  many. 
And,  it  is  admitted,  that  it  does  not  accord  with 
that  used  on  the  same  subject  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  and  other  standards  of  doctrine."  And 
again,  p.  12.  "  The  great  principle  on  which  the 
author  supposes  the  truths  of  religion  are  to  be 
preached,  and  on  which  he  endeavours  to  act  is, 
that  the  Bible  is  to  be  interpreted  by  all  the  ho- 


nest helps  within  the  reach  of  the  preacher,  and, 
then  procaimed  as  it  is,  let  it  lead  where  it  will, 
within,  or  without  the  circumference  of  any  ar-' 
rangement  of  doctrines.  He  is  supposed  to  be 
responsible,  not  at  all  for  its  impinging  on  any 
theological  system  ;  nor  is  he  to  be  cramped  by 
any  frame  work  of  Faith  that  has  been  reared 
around  the  Bible."  This  language  would  seem 
to  imply,  that  an  individual  may  enter  the  bosom 
of  a  church  by  a  public  reception  of  its  creed,  and 
continue  in  the  communion  of  thut  church,  al- 
though he  should  subsequently  discover  that  its 
creed  was  not  founded  on  the  word  of  God. 
Whilst  the  liberty  of  every  man  to  accept  or  re- 
ject any  particular  creed,  is  fully  acknowledged 
by  this  Presbytery,  yet  they  do  deny,  that  any 
minister,  whilst  he  remains  in  the  communion  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  has  a  rioht  to  impuirn 
its  creed,  or  to  make  a  public  declaration  that  he 
18  not  bound  by  lis  authority. 

In^n^y  a,  whole  view  o\'  this  di-scourse  seems  to 
warrant  the  belief,  that  the  grand  and  fundamen- 
tal doctrine  of  justification,  as  held  by  the  Protes- 
tant Reformers,  and  taught  clearly  and  abundant- 
ly  in  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is 
really  not  held,  but  denied  in  this  sermon.  For 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  is  denied;  and  the 
endurance  of  the  penalty  of  the  law  by  Christ,  is 
denied;  and  any  special  reference  of  the  atone- 
ment to  the  elect  of  God,  is  denied  ;  and  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  as  the  meritorious  ground  of 
our  acquittal  and  acceptance  with  God,  is  not  once 
mentioned,  although  the  text  ot  the  discourse 
naturally  points  to  the  doctrine  :  and  when  it  is 
considered  that  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin 
to  his  posterity,  and  the  imputation  of  the  sins  of 
God's  people  to  their  surety  Saviour,  and  the  im- 
putation of  his  finished  righteousness  to  them,  do 
all  rest  upon  the  same  ground,  and  must  all  stand 
or  fall  together,  and  that  it  has  been  found  in  fact, 
that  those  who  deny  one  of  these,  do  generally 
deny  the  whole,  and  to  be  consistent,  must  neces- 
sarily do  so,  it  is  no  forced  conclusion,  but  one 
which  seems  inevitable,  that  the  sermon  does  really 
reject  the  doctrine  of  justification,  as  held  by  the 
Reformers,  and  as  taught  in  our  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms ;  that  it  does  not  teach  as 
the  answer  to  the  question  on  justification  in  our 
Shorter  Catechism  asserts,  that  "Justification  is  an 
act  of  God's  free  grace,  wherein  he  par.Honeth  all 
our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his 
sigkL,  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christy  imputed 
to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone.'* 

It  is  not  satisfactory,  that  the  sermon  says,  that 
"  Christ  died  in  the  place  of  sinners ;"  that  it 
speaks  of"  the  merits  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ"— of '^ the  love  of  Christ,"  of  "  put- 
ting on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  of  being  "  willing 
to  drop  into  the  hands  of  Jesus,  and  to  be  saved  by 
his  merit  alone,"  ofGod,  "sprinkling  on  the  soul 
the  blood  of  Jesus,  and  freely  pardoning  all  its 
sins,"  einee  this  language  may  be  used,  and  is  ac* 


8 


tually  used,  by  some  who  explicitly  deny,  that 
Christtook  the  law  place  ot'sinners,  bore  the  curse 
of  God's  law  in  their  room  and  stead,  and  that  they 
are  saved  only  by  the  imputation  to  then:>  of  his 
perfect  rinrhteoiuyiess. 

On  the  whole,  the  Pret^bytery  express  their 
deep  regret,  that  Mr.  Barnes  should  have  preached 
and  published  a  discourse,  so  hisrhly  objectionable, 
and  so  manifestly,  in  some  of  its  leading  points, 
opposed  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Catechisms  of  the  Presbyterian  Ciiurch;  ihey 
earnestly  recommend  lo  Mr.  Barnes,  to  reconsider 
and  renounce  the  ernwieous  matter  contained  in 
his  printed  seniKm,  &.<  specified  in  the  foregoing 
decisions  of  Presbytery  :  nnd  with  a  view  toafliird 
time  to  Mr.  Barnes  tor  retlection  ami  reconsidera- 
tion, in  reference  to  the  errors  of  his  sermon,  and 
for  opportunity  tor  such  of  the  brethren,  as  may 
choose  to  converse  freely  with  him  on  tlie  subject, 
the  Presbytery  do  suspt^nd  tiieir  final  decision  (Mi 
the  case,  until  their  ne.\l  slated  meeting." 

It  was  then  moved  by  Mr.  Engles,  "that 
Dr.  Green,  Mr.  M'Calla,  and  Mr.  Latta,  be  a 
committee  to  wait  on  Mr.  Barnes,  to  communicate 
to  him  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  this  Pres- 
bytery in  the  e.xauiination  of  his  sermon,  and  to 
converse  with  him  freely  and  atfectionately,  on  the 
points  excepted  to  in  that  sermon  ;  in  the  hope 
and  expectation,  that  the  interview  will  result  in 
removing  or  diminishing  the  difficulties  which 
have  arisen  in  his  c.ise  ;  and  that  they  report  at 
the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery." 

Let  candour  say,  whether  the  spirit  of  persecu- 
tion is  discoverable  in  this  award  of  Presbytery. 
Is  not  its  whole  lanjiuage,  manner,  and  substance, 
marked  with  moderaiion.  caution,  and  even  kind- 
ness 1  Can  it  be  denied  that  the  quotaiioiis  are 
fairly  made  from  the  sermon  1  and  if  fairly  made, 
what  orthodox  man  will  say  that  they  did  not  de- 
mand aniraadverlion  1  and  in  what  form,  we  ask, 
could  animadversion  be  more  tenderly  expressed] 
On  the  other  hand,  can  any  thing  be  more  evident, 
than  that  evasions,  from  first  lo  last,  were 
practised,  to  prevent  the  bringing  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  sermon  to  a  fair  comparison  with  what  is 
set  forth  in  the  Standards  of  the  church. 

We  wish  to  add  here,  thai  those  who  are  desi- 
rous to  understand  the  whole  case  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
will  do  well  to  mark  atienlively,  the  objectionable 
points  of  doctrine  in  his  sermon,  as  staled  in  the 
decision  of  the  Pieshyiery.  They  will  be  found 
to  be  the  very  same,  which  we  shall  show,  are 
prominent  in  his  notes  on  the  Romans,  for  which 
he  is  now  under  suspension  by  the  Synod. — There 
is  indeed  more  in  the  notes  than  in  the  sermon, 
but  the  most  objectionable  points  are  the  same  in 
both.  Hence  il  appears,  that  after  the  space  of 
five  years  for  review  and  reconsideration,  he  ad- 
heres steadfastly  to  the  unsound  doctrinal  errors 
he  has  adopted Time  has  only  served  to  con- 
firm him  in  ihem,  and  to  determine  him,  at  all 
h»Eard«,  lo  teach,  publish,  and  endeavour  to  dif- 


fuse them,  as  extensively  as  possible.  Scarcely 
a  hope  is  left  that  he  will  either  change  them,  or 
forbear  to  propagate  ihem  lo  the  utmost  of  his 
abiliiy.  Will  this  be  permitted  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian church]  The  next  General  Assembly  will 
decide  the  important  question. 

'I'o  return  to  oiir  narrative.  The  committee  ap- 
pointed by  the  Presbytery  to  converse  with  Mr. 
Barnes  "  freely  and  affectionately,  on  the  points 
excepted  to  in  his  sermon,"  allempted  to  perform 
the  duty  assigned  them.  They  went  together  lo 
ihe  study  of  Mr.  Barnes;  but  alter  receiving  them 
courteously,  lie  refused  to  hold  any  conversation 
with  ihem  as  a  committee,  on  the  subject  of  their 
appointment,  but  said  he  would  be  willing  lo  con- 
verse with  ihern  as  individuals  in  private.  After 
reinaininji  with  him  about  an  hour,  when  l.iey 
rose  to  depart,  he  delivered  to  them  a  paper,  in 
which  he  had  staled  in  writing  the  ground  of  his 
refu,sal ;  which  was,  in  substance,  thai  he  consi- 
dered the  whole  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  in 
his  case,  since  the  decision  of  the  Synod,  as  un- 
constitutional, and  Iherefore  could  do  no  act  that 
might  seem  to  imply  its  legality.  The  committee 
made  their  report  lo  the  Presbytery,  and  delivered 
in  Mr.  Barnes'  written  answer,  al  the  stated  meet- 
ing in  April,  1831,  After  much  discussion,  it 
was  resolved,  thai  without  farther  action  on  the 
case  of  Mr.  Barnes  al  that  time,  it  should  be  re- 
ferred, together  with  several  points  of  constitu- 
tional Older,  which  the  discussion  on  his  case 
had  elicited,  to  the  General  Assembly,  which 
was  to  sit  in  the  following  month. 

To  prevent  the  members  of  the  Presbytery 
who  now  formed  the  majority,  from  retaining 
Iheir  representation  in  the  Assembly,  lo  which 
they  would  have  been  entitled  if  the  case  had 
gone  up  merely  as  a  reterence,  the  New  School 
members  contrived  (for  it  really  required  con- 
trivance) lo  connect  with  the  reference  two  or 
three  complaints,  against  the  proceedings  in  the 
mailers  referred  ;  thus  giving  to  the  whole  the 
character  of  a  case  demanding  a  judicial  process, 
and  of  course  depriving  the  Presbytery,  as  a  par- 
ty, of  a  vote  on  the  merits  of  the  question,  in  the 
court  of  the  last  resort.  The  manner  in  which 
the  New  School  majority  of  this  Assembly  was 
secured,  has  already  been  indicated  ;  and  most 
faithfully  did  that  majority  act  the  part  for  which 
they  were  chosen.  .After  regularly  consliluling 
the  court,  for  the  trial  in  which  the  complainants 
had  made  Mr.  Barnes  a  party  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  Presbytery  a  party  on  the  other,  they  heard 
the  voluminous  documents  which  related  to  the 
case;  and  when  those  were  finished,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Presbytery  were  surprised  with 
a  proposal  from  their  opponents,  to  leave  the  cas& 
to  the  decision  of  the  court,  without  argument. 
A  liille  time  was  asked  lo  deliberate  on  this  pro- 
position, but  the  Moderator,  Dr.  Beman,  declared 
that  none  could  be  allowed — the  decision  must  b» 
made  without  delay  :  and  thus,  taken  by  surprise. 


the  Presbyteriul  representatives  (indiscreetly  as 
we  liiink)  consented  to  submit  the  case  to  the 
court  without  argunnent.  As  soon  as  this  looit 
place,  a  ntjotiou,  which  had  pieviotioly  been  made 
■without  success,  was  renewed,  which  was,  to 
pubnnil  the  whole  case  to  a  comnoiilee.  This  com- 
mittee the  Moderator  forthwith  appointed,  putting 
on  it  one  of  the  Connecticut  delegation,  a  resident 
of  New  Haven. 

In  the  appointment  of  this  committee,  it  will  be 
observed,  there  was  a  total  departure  from  the 
usual  course  in  a  judicial  process;  and  this  de- 
parture was  still  more  flagrant,  when  the  com- 
iriittee  reported.  Although  the  constitution  of 
the  church  expressly  requires,  that  in  cases 
of  appeal  "the  clerk  shall  call  the  roll,  that 
every  member  may  have  an  opportunity  to  ex- 
press his  opinion  of  the  case,"  this  provision 
was  totally  disregarded.  The  roll  was  not  call- 
ed, and  all  discussion  on  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee was  discouraged  by  the  Moderator,  and 
nothing  of  the  kind  took  place.  The  resolutions 
of  the  committee  were  adopted  almost  without  re- 
mark, and  entirely  without  amendment.  Thus. 
after  a  regular  trial  was  commenced,  in  place  of 
being  carried  through,  it  was  dropped  ;  and  this 
without  the  consent,  and  contrary  to  the  wishes  of 
the  Presbytery.  The  Assembly  converted  itself 
into  a  body,  resembling  the  associations  of  the 
Congregational  churches  in  New  England:  and 
this  was  boasted  of,  in  a  publication  issued  by 
the  member  from  New  Haven,  in  reply  to  some 
remarks  which  had  been  published,  on  the  impro- 
priety of  his  appointment  as  a  member  of  this 
committee.  Along  with  much  in  the  same  style, 
he  tauntingly  says  :  "  1  could  not  but  ask  within 
myself,  what  is  this  lauded  system  of  power  and 
jurisdiction  worth — these  judicatures,  court  rising 
above  court,  in  regular  gradation  what  are  they 
worth,  if  you  are  afraid  to  try  your  system  in  the 
hour  of  need  1  .  .  .  .  And  when  the  Assembly 
and  the  parties*  at  last  acceded  to  that  proposal, 
1  supposed  that  the  general  conviction  was,  that 
it  was  best  to  go  to  work  on  that  occasion,  in 
something  like  the    Congregrational  way,  rather 


were  evaded  altogether ;  »•  the  committee  being  of 
the  opinion  that,  if  ihey  be  answered,  they  had 
better  be  discussed  and  decided  in  t/icsi,  separate 
from  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes."  And  why,  we 
ask,"  separate  Irom  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes."  Could 
a  just  answer  to  constitutional  questions  affect.  Mr. 
Barnes  ]  Yes,  and  for  that  reason,  beyond  a 
question,  they  were  waived  at  (his  time.  Several 
of  them  have  since  been  decided,  so  as  to  show 
that  if  they  had  been  answered,  in  connection 
with  the  pending  case  of  disfipljne.  they  would 
have  affected  it  very  materially.  'J'wo  of  these 
questions  were  never  answered,  till  the  last  As- 
sembly. One  related  lo  the  constitutional  right 
of  a  Presbytery  to  examine  a  member  applying 
for  admission,  and  bringing  with  him  a  certificate 
of  good  standing  with  the  Presbytery  which  he 
has  left. — The  other  was,  whether  it  is  constitu- 
tional to  examine  and  pronounce  on  a  publication, 
without,  when  practicable,  commencing  a  prose- 
cution, in  the  first  instance,  against  tire  author. 
The  following  were  the  resolutions  pass^ed  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes  : 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  Genera!  Asiemhiy,  while  it 
appreciates  the  conscientious  zeal  for  the  purity  of  the 
church,  by  whicli  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  is 
believed  to  have  been  actuated,  iu  its  proceedings  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Barnes;  and  while  it  judges  that  the  ser- 
mon by  Mr.  Barnes,  entitled, '  The  Way  of  Salvation,' 
contaiuH  a  number  of  unguarded  and  objectionable  pas- 
sages; yet  is  of  the  opinion,  that,  especially  after  the 
explanations  which  were  given  by  him  of  those  pas- 
sages, the  Presbytery  ought  to  have  suffered  the  whole 
to  pass  without  further  notice. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Assem- 
bly, the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  ought  to  suspend 
all  further  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

"  3.  Kesolved,  That  it  will  be  expedient,  as  soon  as 
the  regular  steps  can  be  taken,  to  divide  the  Presby- 
tery  in  such  way,  as  will  be  best  calculated  to  promote 
the  peace  of  the  ministers  and  cimrches  belonfrino-  to 
the  Presbytery."  °    " 

We  wish  it  may  be  noticed  and  remembered, 
that  even  in  these  lesolutions,  passed  by  a  New 
School  General  Assembly,  the  belief  of  that  As- 
sembly is  explicitly  declared,  that  in  "the 


than  in  the  Presbyterian  way."  Reproaches  that  I!"^^  '  ^V"," ':'"^,  o^^.areo,  ina  m  "  the  pro- 
can  neither  be  denied  or  repelled,  are  more  griev-  "f '1  of  Mr  p  ''^^  -  ?.  of  Philadelphia,  in 
„..„  „„.j  .^.w;f..:„„  .k...L„,uL   „„j  :„.!...:-   the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes."  that   Presbytery  were 

actuated  by  "  a  conscientious  zeal  for  the  purity 
of  the  church."  This,  surely,  is  something  a 
good  deal  difl'erent  from  a  spirit  of  persecution 
and  bigotry.  We  wish  another  circumstance  may 


ous  and  mortifying  than  any  other,  and  into  this 
predicament  the  Assembly  of  1831,  had,  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  placed  themselves,  and  the 
constitution  nf  ihe  church  which  they  represented. 
Several  quesiions,  relative  to  the  construction  of 
the  constitution,  in  which  not  only  the  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  but  every  other  Presbytery  in  the 
church,  were  deeply  interested,  were  at  this  lime, 
referred    for   decision    to  the  Assembly.    These 


*  This  is  incorrect.  One  of  the  parties,  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  Presbytery,  never  acceded  to  the  pro- 
posal  to  have  their  case  determined  in  the  way  it  was 
issued.  On  the  contrary,  they  felt  deeply  aggrieved  by 
being  deprived  of  a  regular  trial,  according  to  the  ex 
press  provision  of  the  constitution. 


be  noted  in  these  resolutions;  and  that  is,  that 
Mr.  Barnes,  although  prosecution  against  him 
was  arrested,  got  a  hint,  which  it  were  well  if  he 
had  remembered,  whetv  be  wrote  his  Notes  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  hint  is,  that  the  As- 
sembly "judged  that  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
entitled  'The  Way  of  Salvation,'  contained  a 
number  of  unguarded  and  objectionable  pas- 
sages." ^ 

We  go  OB  with  our  narrative.     With  some  re- 
ference to  the  last  of  the  foregoing  resoiationa, 


10 


Ihe  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  at  their  first  sla- 
ted meeting  after  the  rising  of  the  Assembly,  de- 
termined, by  a  considerable  majority,  to  divide 
the  Presbytery,  much  as  it  has  sincebeen  divided, 
by  the  line  of  Market  street.  The  New  School 
members  of  the  Presbytery  were  not  content  with 
this;  and  if  we  rightly  recollect,  pleaded,  as  we 
think  they  might,  that  such  a  division  as  the  ma- 
jority petitioned  for,  would  not  fulfil  the  intention 
ofthe  Assembly, in  their  last  resolution.  In  a  word, 
here  was  the  origin  o\'  elective  Presbyteries,  and  the 
name  which  one  of  the  New  School  members 
then  gave  them.  These  members,  therefore,  got 
up  a  counter  petition  to  the  Synod,  requesiinw  a 
division  that  would  pui  them  altogether  into  a 
Presbytery  by  themselves.  Both  these  peiitions 
were  brought  before  the  Synod,  which  very 
shortly  afterward  met  in  Baltimore  ;  but  the  Sy- 
nod, after  an  animated  and  prolonrjed  discussion, 
determined  not  to  grant  the  prayer  of  either  of  the 
petitions,  and  that  the  Presbytery  should  remain 
as  it  was,  without  a  division.  Of  this  the  New 
School  members  complained  to  the  Assembly,  and 
petitioned  that  body  lo  do  what  the  Synod  had 
refused.  The  Assembly  of  1832,  to  which  the 
complaint  and  petition  were  addressed,  was  the 
most  numerous  that  ever  met  in  our  church,  con- 
sisting of  320  members — both  parties  having  la- 
boured, throtigh  the  preceding  year,  to  bring  out 
all  their  sirenuih.  Alter  a  debate  which  was  con- 
tinued through  a  whole  week,  the  New  School 
petition  for  an  elective  Presbytery,  was  granted; 
including  not  only  those  who  had  petitioned  the 
Synod,  but  several  who  never  before  had  peti- 
tioned any  judicatory  on  this  subject.  So  that 
the  Assembly,  after  granting  what  the  Synod 
had  refused,  acted  a3  a  court  of  original  juris- 
diction, having  the  power  to  divide  and  form 
Presbyierie*,  This  was  believed  by  the  Synod,  | 
and  by  many  not  of  the  Synod,  to  be  plainly 
unconstitutional;  since  the  constitution  gives 
to  the  Synod  the  power  "to  erect  new  Pres- 
byteries, and  unite  or  divide  those  which  were 
before  erected,"  and  it  specifies  no  such  powers 
as  belonging  lo  the  General  Assembly.  The  doc- 
trine contended  for  by  the  opposers  of  the  elective 
affinity  Presbytery  was,  that  when  a  constitution 
or  law,  either  civil  or  ecclesiasiical,  specifies  cer- 
tain powers  as  belonging  to  a  particular  body  or 
corporation,  and  does  not  specify  the  same  or  si- 
milar powers,  as  belonging  to  another  body, 
whose  existence  it  recognises  and  whose  prero- 
gatives it  specifies,  the  former  body  possesses 
its  specified  powers  exclusively,  and  the  latter 
body  cannot,  by  any  construction  of  its  preroga- 
tives, lawfully  invade  or  exercise  those  powers. 
It  was  also  warmly  urged,  that  the  constitution 
defines  a  Pre.nbytery  to  "consist  of  all  the  minis- 
ters, and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation, 
within  a  certain  district ;"  and  that  in  forming 
the  contemplated  elective  Presbytery,  the  consti- 
tution  would    unavoidably   be   infringed;  in   as 


much  as  two  Presbyteries  would  exist  within  the 
sarne  district,  and  therefore  each  of  those  Presby- 
teries could  not  include  all  the  ministers  and  con- 
gregations within  that  district.  The  Assembly 
notwithstanding,  did  form  the  elective  Presbytery 
petitioned  for,  and  it  went  into  speedy  and  vigor- 
ous action. 

The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  which  met  in  the 
autumn  of  this  year  (1832)  refused  to  recognise, 
as  a  constituent  part  of  that  body,  the  elective 
Presbytery  created  by  the  Assembly:  and  they 
adopted  a  remonstrance,  addressed  to  the  Assem- 
bly ofthe  following  year,  against  the  act  by  which 
such  a  Presbytery  had  been  formed,  and  appoint- 
ed a  committee  to  represent  and  plead  the  cause 
ofthe  Synod,  when  it  should  come  before  the  su- 
premejudicalory.  'I'he  Presbytery  of  Philadelp  )ia, 
also  presented  a  remonstrance,  at  the  same  time, 
against  what  they  considered  as  an  unlawful  and 
injurious  division  of  their  body.  The  elective 
Presbytery,  on  their  part,  complained  to  the  Ge- 
neral Assembly  of  the  treatment  they  had  received 
from  the  Synod,  in  not  recognising  them  as  a 
Presbytery.  When  the  papers  in  which  these 
conflicting  viewscame  before  the  Assembly  (1833) 
they  were,  together  with  two  other  complaints 
from  individuals,  relative  to  the  same  cause,  re- 
ferred to  a  committee,  called  in  the  minutes  "  the 
committee  of  compromise."  The  committee  re- 
ported that  they  had  seen  and  conversed  with  the 
members,  or  representatives,  of  the  elective  Pres- 
bytery, and  with  thirty  one  members  of  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia,  and  recommended  to  the  Assem- 
bly  the  following  resolution,  viz. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  complainants  in  those  cases 
have  leave  to  withdraw  their  complaints,  and  that 
the  consideration  of  all  the  papers,  relating  to  the 
2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  be  indefinitely 
postponed.  The  Assembly  then  united  in  prayer, 
reluming  thanks  to  God,  for  his  goodness  in  bring- 
ing this  matter  to  such  an  amicable  adjustment." 
Notwithstanding  all  this  appearance  of  cordiality, 
and  the  final  settlement  of  the  controversy,  it 
afterwards  appeared,  that  the  representatives  of 
the  Synod  had  never  consented,  but  were  entirely 
and  inflexibly  opposed  to  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  thatthechairman  of  thatcomrnitteehad 
made  every  effort  in  his  power  to  get  a  written  re- 
monstrance against  the  whole  proceeding  brought 
before  the  Assembly,  but  that  his  request  was  de- 
nied and  his  paper  not  permitted  to  be  read. 

When  the  Synod  met  at  CoLimbia,  Pa.  in  the 
Fall  of  this  year  (1831,)  and  heard  the  report  of 
their  committee,  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion, 
as  to  the  best  course  to  be  pursued,  to  get  rid  of 
the  elective  affinity  Presbytery;  but  there  were 
very  few  members  present,  who  were  not  entirely 
of  one  mind,  that  in  some  way  or  other  the  evil 
was  to  be  abated.  The  measures  that  were  finally 
adopted  are  expressed  in  the  following  resolu- 
tions. 

«  Whereas,  the  Reportof  the  Committee  appoinfr> 


n 


cd  by  ihe  last  Assembly,  to  whom  was  referred ;  of  Wilmington  and  Lewes.     And  in  answer  to  an 

the  complaint  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Phi-  '•-  —  '• '-'=-'"         -"-    -"-'  ^   '-       ' 

ladelphia,  was  founded  in  the  apprehension  of 
that  Presbytery  and  of  the  Comraiilee,  that  said 
Presbytery  would  be  received  by  this  Synod  at 
its  present  meeting,  as  a  constituent  member: 

Therefore,  Resolved,  1.  That  while  this  Synod 
reprobate  and  condemn  both  the  principle  on 
which  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  was  divid- 
ed, and  also  the  exercise  of  unwarrantable  autho- 
rity by  the  Assembly  in  dividing  the  Presbytery; 
and  while  the  Synod  expressly  forbid  any  act  of 
theirs  in  this  mailer,  to  be  considered  as  sanction- 
ing either  the  principle  or  the  act  above  alluded 
to'and  condemned,  yet,  regarding  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances of  this  case,  and  with  the  above  de- 
clarations of  Synod,  the  Synod  do  hereby  receive 
the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  aa  a  con- 
stituent member  of  this  body. 


inquiry,  publicly  made  and  answered  in  the 
house  at  the  time,  it  appeared  that  the  elective 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  contained  seven  or 
eight  members,  more  than  both  the  other  Fresbyttrief 
put  together;  so  that  it  was  manifest,  that  the  Sy- 
nod was  formed,  not  only  for  the  accommodation 
of  this  Presbytery,  but  that,  virtually,  this  Presby- 
tery was  itself  erected  into  a  Synod.  The  Pres- 
byteries of  Wilmifvglon  and  Lewes,  were  also  ab- 
stracted from  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  not  only 
without  consulting  it,  but  contrary  to  its  known 
wishes. 

Two  other  extraordinary  doings  of  this  As- 
sembly, as  having  some  connection  with  the  case 
of  Mr.  Barnes,  must  be  rioticed  here.  A  re- 
spectful and  very  able  memorial  was  presented  to 
the  house,  prepared  by  a  number  of  brethren  in 
the  distant  West,*  and  in  which  they  stated  that 


2.  Resolved,  That  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  [  the  sentiments  of  members  of  thirteen  Presbyie- 
Synod  to  divide  and  unite  Presbyteries,  this  Sy-  ries  in  that  region,  had  been  consulted.  This  Me- 
nod  do  hereby  unite  the  Second  Presbytery  of  jmorial  had  been  previously  circulated  in  a  pamphlet 
Philadelphia  with  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  form  and  had  been  taken  up,  acted  on  and  adopted^ 
and  ordain  the  two  Presbyteries  thus  united  to  according  to  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Over 


be  known  as  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia 

3.  Resolved,  That  in  the  exercise  of  the  sanie 
prerogative,  the  Synod  do  hereby  divide  the  said 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  by  the  line  of  Market 
street  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  extending  as  far 
east  as  may  be  necessary,  and  west  to  the  Schuyl- 
kill, then  up  the  Schuylkill  to  the  extremity  of 
the  Presbytery;  and  that  the  ministers  and 
churches  south  of  said  line  be  known  as  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia,  and  those  of  the  north  side 
be  known  as  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia." 

As  usual,  the  elective  Presbytery  came  forward 
to  the  next  General  Assembly  (1834),  with  both 
a  complaint  and  an  appeal.  A  discussion  ensued 
which  (with  intervals  for  attending  to  other  ob- 
jects) lasted  for  about  ten  days.  The  details  are 
too  long  to  be  specified,  and  are  indeed  not  mate- 
rial to  a  correct  understanding  of  the  issue.  That 
issue  was,  that  the  complaint  and  appeal  were 
both  sustained,  the  vote  on  the  former  being 
Ayes  118,  Nays  57,  on  the  latter.  Ayes  90,  Nays 
81.  A  strong  protest  against  this  decision  was  en- 
tered by  the  minority,  and  answered  by  a  com- 
mittee appointed  by  the  house.  We  regret  to  be 
obliged  by  our  limits  to  omit  these  important 
papers.  But  the  Assembly  did  not  rest  here. 
Having  found  that  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  «yas 
irreconcilably  opposed  to  the  principle  of  elective 
affinity,  in  the  constitution  of  the  judicatories  of 
the  church,  and  never  would  admit  a  Presbytery 
formed  on  this  principle  as  one  of  its  constituent 
parts,  the  measure  was  adopted  of  forming  a  Synod 
on  the  same  principle,  or  one  at  least  in  which  the 
elective  Presbytery,  already  in  existence,  should 
have  a  dominant  influence.  Such  a  Synod  was 
accordingly  formed,  consisting  of  the  elective 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  Presbyteries 


tures,  "  by  eight  Presbyteries,  eleven  church  Ses- 
sions, fifty  two  ministers,  and  twenty-four  elders» 
and  in  part  by  other  Presbyteries." — The  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia  had  adopted  it  unanimous- 
ly. The  Memorial  purported  to  be  "  on  the  pre- 
sent stale  of  the  Presbyterian  church  under  the 
care  of  the  General  Assembly;"  and  it  laid  open 
in  a  plain  and  masterly,  but  respectful  manner, 
the  appalling  and  numerous  errors,  abuses  and 
unconstitutional  measures,  which  had  found  their 
way  into  the  church;  and  it  called  on  the  Assem- 
bly, in  very  urgent  language,  for  a  corrective  of 
these  evils.  This  Memorial  was  treated  with 
marked  indignity.  It  was  not  even  permitted  to 
beread,(thoughitsreadingwas  repeatedly  urged,) 
till  it  had  been  committed,  and  reported  on, 'with 
every  mark  of  disapprobation:  And  when  it  was 
at  last  read,  some  of  the  members  went  out  of  the 
house,  and  others  manifested  their  dislike,  not  t& 
say  their  scorn,  by  indications  not  to  be  mistaken. 
Not  one  of  the  reforms  requested  was  granted; 
and  the  opportunity  was  taken  to  decide  two 
points  of  constitutional  law— which  decisions,  as 
being  unconstitutional,  were  reversed  by  the  last 
Assembly.  The  first  point  was  the  one  on  which 
Mr.  Barnes  and  his  advocates  had  rested  all  their 
pleas  against  his  being  examined  or  questioned, 
when  he  joined  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery; 
namely.  That  clean  papers  place  a  man,  in  any 
Presbytery  to  which  he  may  go,  in  the  same  good 
standing  which  he  held  in  the  Presbytery  that 
he   has  left — consequently,   that  all  inquiry  in 

*  It  was  originally  signed  by  sixteen  ministers  and 
twenty-three  elders,  and  was  addressed,  "  to  the  Mode^ 
rator  and  members  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the 
United  States,  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  ott 
the  15th  of  May,  1834." 


12 


regard   to  his  orthodoxy   is  completely   barred, 
fhe  second  point  was,  thai  no  publication  can  be 
lawfully  condemned,  as  containing  heresy  or  un- 
sound doctrine,  without  first  commencing  a  pro- 
secution  against  its  author,  if  he  be  known  and 
accesstbie.  Ttie  maintenance  of  this   unconstitu- 
tional prmciple  had  furnished  another  main  plea 
of  Mr.  Barnes  and  his  favourers,  in  withholding 
his  publi!»hed   sermon  from   a  judicial   scrutiny, 
I  here  were  other  points  on  which  this  Assembly 
passed  decisions  of  a    very  exceptionable   kind, 
but  we  have  not  space    to  notice  them  specifi- 
cally.      Protests,    powerful    and    unanswerable, 
were  offered   by  the   minority  against  what  was 
done   in    disposing  of    the  memorial,   but    they 
produced  no  salutary  effect.     There  was  indeed, 
a  recklessness  in  the  course  pursued   by  the  ma- 
jority of  this  Assembly,  and   an   utter  disregard 
of  the  feelings   and   remonstrances  of  the   mlno- 
nty,   which    we    have  never  seen   on  any   other 
occasion,  in  the  supreme  judicatory  of  our  church, 
iJut  what   made  the  cup  of  bitterness  overflow, 
was  the  absolute  refusal,  evew  to  admit  or   notice 
on  the  minutes,  a  motion  made  by  a  western  mem- 
ber, lor  the  Assembly  to  bear  testimony  against  the 
numerous  and  fundamental  errors  prevalent  in  our 
country  and  church,  which  he  specified  in  his  mo- 
tion ;  and  the  most  important  of  which  were  enu- 
merated and  condemned  by  the  last  General  As- 
sembly. 

Such  were  the  proceedings  which  thorough- 
ly ratified  the  minority,  that  they  could  ex- 
pect, and  the  church  could  expect,  no  redress  of 
grievances,  and  no  measures  calculated  to  arrest 
and  counteract  the  evils  which  threatened  to  sub- 
vert our  whole  ecclesiastical  system,  till  our  su- 
preme judiciary  should  possess  an  essentially  dif- 
ferent character  from  that  of  the  existing  General 
Assembly;  and  which  had,  in  a  considerable  de- 
gree, belonged  to  all  its  predecessors  from  1831 
to  1834,  both  these  years  inclusive.  It  was  un- 
der the  solemn  impression  of  this  conviction,  that 
the  minority  of  the  Assembly,  in  concert  with 
some  other  brethren  who  were  providentially  pre- 
sent in  Philadelphia,  and  who  had,  in  part,  wit- 
nessed the  oppressive  and  erroneous  course  of  the 
majority,  drew  up  and  passed  that  Acfand  Testi- 
mony, which,  under  the  blessing  of  God,  had  a 
hap|)y  influence  in  contributing  to  bring  into  the 
General  Assembly  of  last  year  an  overwhelming 
majority  of  Old  School  members,  and  to  restore  to 
that  body  its  former  character,  as  the  guardian  of 
the  purity  of  the  church,  and  the  corrector  of 
the  errors  which  destroy  its  peace  and  order. 

In  giving  the  foregoing  narrative,  we  desire  it 
may  be  distinctly  understood,  that  we  do  not  im- 
pute to  Mr.  Barnes  the  originating  and  fostering 
of  all  the  errors,  which,  for  five  years  past,  have 
threatened  to  deluge  our  church.  Such  has  not 
been  our  intention,  for  such  we  know  has  not  been 
the  fact.  The  truth  is,  that  New  Schoolism,  had 
long  .been  sapping  the  orthodoxy  of  our  church. 


and  was  ripe  for  an  explosion,  when  the  case  of 
Mr.  Barnes  occurred,  and  served  as  a  well  adapted 
torch  to  spring  the  mine.  He  has  ever  since  been 
connected  with  the  parly  who  then  arrayed  them- 
selves in  his  favour,  and  who  have  continued  to 
make  his  case  a  rallying  point  for  their  forces; 
but  we  do  not  charge  on  him  all  the  monstrous 
aberrations  and  absurdities,  into  which  some  of 
his  party  have  run.  This  would  be  such  an  im- 
peachment of  his  principles,  good  sense,  taste  and 
discretion,  as  we  are  pursuaded  ought  not  to  be 
made.  We  consider  him  as,  in  a  high  degree,  an 
errorist,  but  he  is  not  a  weak,  deluded  and  reck- 
less fanatic.  We  lament  his  want  of  orthodoxy, 
but  we  respect  his  understanding.  How  he  or 
any  other  man,  who  holds  the  opmions  which  he 
certainly  does  hold,  can  conscienciously  retain'  his 
standing  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  under  a  dis- 
guise of  his  real  sentiments,  is  what  we  cannot 
discern;  but  beyond  this,  his  moral  character,  so 
far  as  known  to  us,  is  unimpeachable. 

We  have  already  cursorily  noticed  some  of  the 
measures  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  last  year, 
by  which  certain  unconstitutional  and  pernicious 
acts  and  decisions  of  the  preceding  year  were  re- 
scinded. But  among  the  various  reforms,  which 
will  render  memorable  the  doings  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  1835,  none  were  more  important  than  the 
l^stimony  borne  against  the  heretical  errors  which 
had  become  rampant  in  our  church,  and  the  anni- 
hilation of  the  elective  affinity  judicatures,  by 
which  those  errors  were  protected  and  propaga- 
ted.    This  latter  act  was  thus  expressed  : 

"  Resolved,  That  at  and  after  the  meetino-  of  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  in  October  next,'^tbe  Sy- 
nod of  Delaware  shall  be  dissolved,  and  ihe  Pres- 
byleries  constituting  the  same  shall  be,  then  and 
thereafter,  annexed  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
and  that  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  thus  constitut- 
ed by  the  union  aforesaid,  shall  take  such  order 
concerning  ihe  organization  of  its  several  Presbte- 
riev.as  may  bedeemed  expedient  and  constitutional- 
—and  that  said  Synod,  if  it  shall  deem  it  desira- 
ble, make  application  lo  the  next  General  Assem- 
bly, for  such  a  division  of  the  Synod  as  may  best 
suit  the  conveniences  of  all  its  Presbyteries,  and 
promote  the  glory  of  God." 
A  true  copy  from  the  minutes, 

Ezra  Stiles  Ely, 
Slafed  Ckrk  of  the  General  Assembly. 
In  conformity  with  this  resolution  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  having 
met,  agreeably  to  the  adjournment  of  the  former 
year,  at  York,  in  Pennsylvania,  received  into 
their  connection,  as  a  constituent  part  of  their  body, 
the  Synod  of  Delaware,  consislinnr  of  the  Assem- 
bly's 2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  Pres- 
byteries of  Wilmington  and  Lewes.  But  when  the 
Staled  Clerks  of  the  Synod  of  Delaware  and 
of  the  several  Presbyteries  of  which  it  had  been 
composed,  were  required  lo  resign  their  records  to 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  of  which  ihey  were 


13 


now  a  part,  they  posliivdy  aird  pertinaciously  re- 
fused  to  obey  the   requisition  ;  alleging  that  the 
General  Assembly  had   continued  the  Synod  of 
Delawarfl  in  existence  till  the  meeting  of  the  Sy- 
nod of  Philadelphia;  had  not  ordered  that  their 
records  should  be  surrendered  to  that  Synod;  and 
that  as    the  Presbyteries  had  been  amenable  to 
their  own  Synod  till  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  it  could  not  be  supposed  that  they 
were  amenable  to  two  Synods  at  the  same  time. 
That  all  this  was  mere  quibble  and  evasion  is  evi- 
dent, not  only  from  the  plain  import  and  design 
of  the  General  Assembly's  resolution  above  re- 
cited, but  also  from  the  previous  acts  of  the  Synod 
of  Delaware  itself,  and  the  Presbyteries  of  which 
it  was  composed.     It  appeared   that  the  records 
of  these  several  bodies  had  actually  been  brought 
forward  to  this  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia ;  and  it  was  admitted  by  Mr.  Barnes  that  he 
had    come   prepared   to  answer  to  a  prosecution 
against  him  before  the  Synod   of   Philadelphia, 
and  that  he  had  never  heard  of  the  plea  now  made 
by  his  Presbytery  against  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Synod  in  his  case,  till  he  arrived  in  this  place  ; 
yet  he  did  not  choose  todissent  from  his  brethren, 
since  they  had  thought  pro|>er  to  make  this  plea. 
We  have  indeed  heard,  since  the  rising  of  the 
Synod,  that  there  was  a  conference  of  some  of  the 
New   School    members,    before   their   arrival    in 
York,  in  which  the  measures  eventually  adopted 
were  planned.   If  this  were  so,  the  plan,  we  have 
no  doubt,  was  to  go  into  operation  only  on  the 
contingency,  which  eventually  took  place — that 
ihe  Synod  should  be  found  lo  consist  of  a  majori- 
ty of  oihordox  members.    The  truth  is,  the  New 
School  members  of  the  Synod  of  Delaware,  had 
fondly  cherished  the  delusive,  hut  confident  ex- 
pectaliop,  that  when  they  should  be  amalgamated 
with  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  they  would  prove 
to  be  a   majority  of  that  body,  would    overrule 
their  opponents,  and   dispose  of  the  case  of  Mr. 
Barnes,  and   every  thing  else  in  the  proceedings 
of  the  Synoo,  in  a  manner  most  agreeable  to  their 
wishes.  To  ttake  this  sure,  they  brought  forward 
every  individual  they  could  muster, and  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Wilmington  ordained  one  licensed  can- 
didate, who    Wis   under  the   frowns  of  another 
Presbytery,  even  after  they  arrived  at  York.    But 
all  their  hopes  of  a  majority  were  blasted  at  once, 
by  the  vote  for  Mooerator  of  Synod.    By  that  vote 
they  saw  clearly,  thit  instead  of  having  a  majority 
in  the  Synod,  they  would  not  only  be  in  a  minori- 
ty, but  that  minority  -6  small  one.     Then,  and  not 
till  then.ihey  determinsd  to  withhold  their  records, 
(in  accordance,   it  maj  be,  with  a  preconcerted 
plan)  and  to  make  the  piea  we  have  stated.  There 
cannot  be  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  if  they  had 
been,  as  they  hoped  to  he,  the  majority  of  the  Sy- 
nod,  their  records  would  all  have  been  surrender- 
ed without  hesitation  ;  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes 
would  have  been  tried  and  issued,  as  it  had  been 
in  the  court  below ;  and  the  Piesbyteries  would 


have  been  all  arranged  to  their  mind.  Now,  what 
are  we  to  think  of  men  who  can  act  in  this  man- 
nerl  who  will  change  a  right  and  reasonable  course 
of  action,  which  ihey  had  deliberately  purposed 
to  pursue,  because  they  perceive  it  will  not  ter- 
minate agreeably  to  their  wishes  ■?  who  will  plead 
and  inflexibly  insist  on  objections,  with  a  view  to 
embarrass,  and  if  possible,  to  prevent  and  defeat 
a  trial  in  a  court  of  the  Lord  Jesu»  Christ — objec- 
tions which  would  never  have  been  heard  of,  if 
that  trial  could  have  been,  as  they  had  hoped  it 
would  be,  ordered  and  issued  by  themselves  7  Do 
such  men  act  cor>scientiously  1  Who  can  be- 
lieve it  ? 

No  one,  not  a  spectator  of  what  took  place  in 
the  last  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
can  have  any  adequate  conception  of  the  ingenui- 
ty, or  disingenuily  rather,  which  was  employed 
by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Barnes,  either  to  prevent  his 
trial  altogether,  or  if  they  should  not  succeed  in 
this,  to  give  it  the  character  of  an  ex  parte  and  op- 
pressive proceeding.  Much  of  this  will  appear  to 
any  attentive  reader  of  the  minutes  of  the  Synod, 
and  still  more  from  a  perusal  of  the  report  of 
a  stenographer,  which  has  been  published  in  some 
of  the  religious  newspapers.  But  both  together, 
give  but  a  very  imperfect  view  of  what  was  wit- 
nessed, by  those  present  on  the  occasion.  It 
seemed  as  if  there  was  to  be  no  end  of  the  de- 
vices, mancBuvres,  objections  and  evasions,  by 
which  delay  was  produced  and  embarrassment 
created.  It  was  said  by  a  member  who  had  spo- 
ken with  peculiar  kindness  of  Mr.  Barnes — "it 
is  enough  to  exhaust  the  patience  of  Job."  Yet 
it  is  not  true,  as  has  been  represented,  that  the  Sy- 
nod was  disorderly.  With  the  exception  of  one 
outrageous  speech  and  action  of  a  single  New 
School  man,  there  was  as  much  order  as  perhaps 
can  ever  be  preserved,  in  a  deliberative  Assembly 
of  249  members,  when  under  the  excitement  of 
ardent  and  deeply  interesting  discussion — far  bet- 
ter order  than  has  too  often  been  seen  wanting 
in  the  General  Assembly. 

The  Synod  felt  it  to  be  an  imperious  duly 
which  they  owned  to  the  church,  to  issue  the 
case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  notwithstanding  all  the  ob- 
stacles which  were  thrown  in  their  way.  Several 
members,  who  came  to  the  Synod  under  the  full 
impression  that  the  best  course  would  be  to  send 
up  the  appeal  to  the  Assembly,  without  deciding 
on  it  in  the  Synod,  changed  their  opinion.  Never, 
perhaps,  has  there  been,  in  this  country,  a  Synod 
in  which  the  lay  representation  was  proportion- 
ably  so  large.  It  appeared  that  throughout  the 
whole  Synodical  bounds,  a  decision  was  looked 
for,  and,  in  some  places,  earnestly  demanded; 
and  that  to  refuse  it,  would  be  considered  as  a  re- 
proachful shrinking  from  an  unpleasant  duty  ;  and 
would  leave  the  whole  subject  in  suspense  for  the 
ensuing  half  year.  Nor  was  it  by  any  means  cer- 
tain, if  the  case  went  up  to  the  Assembly  without 
Synodical  action,  that  the  Assembly  would  not,  as 


14 


had  been  done  in  other  cases,  send  it  back  to  the  on  the  Synod  that  8»»fpended  him.     When 

Synod;  and  then  a  whole  year  would  elapse  wilh- 

out  a  decision  of  any  i<ind.     To  act  in  this  case 

by   the  Synod,  was   clearly  most  in  accordance 

with  the  spirit  and  design  of  the  constitution  ;  for 

there  was  plainly  nothing;  special  in  the  case,  ex- 
cept   that   it    had   made   much    noise,    and    that 

the  object  of  the   prosecution  was  the  pastor  of 

a  lafijre   and  wealthy   congregation    in    the   city 

of  Philadelphia, — considerations  which  certainly 

ought  to  have  no  influence  to  deter  a  court  of  the 

Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  performing  its  duty.   That 

such  considerations  do,  in  fact,  too  often  operate 

powerfully,  must  be  acknowledged,  to  the  shame 

of  the  church.     It  is  to  the  praise  of  the  Synod, 

that  they  did  not  operate  to  deter  from  the  trial  of 

Mr.  Barnes.     Well  are  we  persuaded,  that  if  his 

case  had  been  that  of  an  obscure  country  minis- 
ter, he  would  long  since  have  been  put  out  of  the 

Presbyterian    church,   without   a  clamorous  dis- 
turbance of  its   peace  and  unity.     The  influence 

of  wealth   and   station  has  been  the  bane  of  the 

Christian  church,  in  every  period  of  her  history. 

In  cases  of  discipline,  especially,  it  is  peculiarly 

diflicult  to  resist  it. 

Mr.  Barnes,  it  is  our  opinion,  suffered  no  in- 
jury, from  the  withholding  by  his   Presbytery  of 

the  minutes  in  which  his  trial  and  acquittal  were 

recorded.     The   identical  charges  on  which  he 

had  been  tried,  with  distinct  references  to  those 
parts  of  our  doctrinal  standards  with  which 
they  were  in  conflict,  and  to  the  award  of  the 
Presbytery,  with  the  reasons  by  which  it  was  at- 
tempted to  be  justified,  were  all  before  the  Synod, 
verified  on  oath.  The  book,  for  the  false  doctrine 
of  which  he  was  prosecuted,  was  likewise  pre- 
sent, and  the  objectionable  parts  had  been  care- 
fully read  and  considered  by  many  of  the  mem- 
bers. The  quotations  of  the  prosecutor,  had  he  been 
so  disposed,  could  not  be  unfairly  made.  Any  at- 
tempt of  the  kind,  would  only  have  prejudiced  his 
cause,  when  the  document  quoted  was  at  hand  to 
confront  him.  But  so  far  as  we  have  seen,  or 
heard,  the  fairness  of  the  quotations  has  never 
been  questioned.  Now,  when  this  was  the  state 
of  facts,  what  did  Mr.  Barnes  lack,  in  his  trial 
before  the  Synod  1  Nothing  but  a  speech  of  ex- 
planations, with  considerations  addressed  to  the 
feelings  more  than  to  the  understanding  and  judg- 
ment of  the  court.  But  not  to  insist,  as  we  rea- 
sonably might,  that  his  not  pleading  was  really 
wholly  chargeable  on  himself  and  on  his  Presby- 
tery, since  he  was  both  permitted  and  urged  to 
make  hia  defence — we  rerily  believe  his  silence 
did  him  no  injury.  We  have  been  truly  surprised 
to  see  the  influence  that  explanations,  as  they  are 
called,  have  had  in  our  ecclesiastical  courts — we 
remember  that  they  were  referred  to  with  an  espe- 
cially, when  the  New  School  Assembly  of  1831, 
cleared  Mr.  Barnes,  with  only  a  slight  censure. 
But  we  are  persuaded  that  explanations,  if  he 
had  mad«  them,  would  have  had  little  influence 


his 
not  making  a  defence  was  incidentally  referred 
to,  while  his  case  was  under  consideration,  a  lay 
member  of  the  court,  who  had  seen  much  of  legal 
proceedings,   though   not  a  professional   lawyl-r, 
made  some  remarks  on  this  topic,  which  we  think 
it  were  well   if  every  ecclesiastical  court  in  our 
land   had  heard,  and  which  we  do  hope  will  sug- 
gest themselves  to  the  minds  of  the  members  of 
the  next  General  Assembly.     They  were  to  this 
effect.     1  consider,  said   he,  that  the  book  before 
us   ought    to   be  treated,    just  as   a    publication 
which  is  aflirmed  to  be  libellous   is  treated,  in  a 
civil  court.     What  is  the  question  there  1     Is  it, 
that   the  defendant's  counsel   has   said  much  to 
show  that  the   language  of  the  publication   can 
bear  such   a  construction  as  to  free  it  from  the 
charge  of  being  a   libel?     No  such  thing.     The 
question  is.  Has  not  the  publication  been'^viewed 
and   understood   as  libellous,  by  those  who  have 
read  it?     Is  not  the  natural   and  proper  import  of 
the  language  libellous?     Yes,  and  an  honest  and 
enlightened  jury  will  give  their  verdict  on  these 
inquiries,  let  the  lawyers  give  as  many  explana- 
tions as  they  please.     And  so  we  must  give  our 
verdict  on   this  book  in   the  very  same  manner, 
although  Mr.  Barnes  had  explained  ever  so  much. 
No  matter  if  he  says  that  he  meant  this  thing, 
that,  or  the  other.     The  question  is,  what  mean- 
ing does  the  world  take  up,  in  reading  bis  book? 
What  impression  does  the  book  make,  and  natu- 
rally make,  on  the  popular  mind  ?     This  is  to  be 
our  guide;   and  not  his  explanations,  which  can- 
not travel  with  his  book  wherever  it  goes;  and  if 
they  could,  would   not  make  it  other  than  a  bad 
book,  after  all.     It  was  in  accordance  with   such 
an   estimation   as  this  of  ihe   j)ublication  of  Mr. 
Barnes,   that  the    Synod   pronounced   their  sen- 
tence.    The  members  were  fully  convinced,  that 
no  intelligent  and  candid   reader  of   that  book, 
could   compare  it  with   the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Catechisms  of  our  church,  without  seeing  and 
saying,  that  they  were  in  direct   opposition    to 
each  other.     And  this  we  do  consc/encioosly  be- 
lieve, was  a  just  estimate.     We  do  think,  that 
whoever  intelligently  and  attentively  examines  the 
commentary  of  Mr.  Barnes  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  must  see  that  it  differs  from,  and  op- 
poses our  doctrinal  standards  ii  essential  points. 
That  it  denies  our  covenant  relation  to  Adam, 
and   the  inborn  moral  corru|tion  of  all   bis  pos- 
terity, as  the  consequence  of  his  fall ;  denies  the 
utter  inability  of  an  unregenerate  man  to  love 
God  and  keep  his  commandments;  denies  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  perfectly  obeyed  the  law 
of  God,  and  endured   all  its  penalty,  iVj  tlie  room 
and  stead  of  his  redeemed  people ;  and  denies,  of 
course,  that  his  finished  righteousness  is  imputed 
to  them,  and  being  received  by  faith,  constitutes 
this  title  to  eternal  life.     And  we  do  solemnly 
ask,  whetht-r  any  one  who  denies  these  things, 
and  publishes  and  propagates  his  denial  ia  tb» 


15 


Presbyterian  church,  can  be  safely  continued  in 
the  communion  of  that  church  ? 

We  cannot  but  call  to  mind  the  inveteracy  of 
error,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes.  His  theological 
training  was  in  the  Seminary  at  Princeton,  to 
which  we  have  understood  that  he  went,  at  an 
early  period  after  he  became  a  professing  Christian. 
And  he  must  there  have  read  the  authors,  and  heard 
the  theological  lectures,  which,  if  any  human  means 
could  do  it,  seemed  most  likely  to  have  preserved 
hira  from  the  dangerous  mistakes  into  which  he  has 
fallen.  But  his  confidence  in  himself,  appears  to 
have  been  such,  that  he  not  only  retained  his 
errors,  but  soon  after  he  commenced  his  ministry, 
published  them  to  the  world,  in  the  sermon  which 
has  caused  so  much  trouble  to  himself  and  to  the 
whole  church  to  which  he  belongs:  And  notwith- 
standing the  warnings  he  received,  in  consequence 
of  that  first  publication,  from  the  presbytery  and 
synod  of  which  he  weis  then  a  member,,  and  also,  as 
has  been  shown,  from  the  General  Assembly,  to 
which  his  case  was  carried  up,  he  has  since  pub- 
lished his  Commentary,  expressly  for  the  use  of 
Sabbath-schools, — thus  seeking  to  embue  the  youth 
of  our  church,  with  sentiments  palpably  hostile  to 
the  creed  of  their  fathers,  and  calculated  eventually 
to  change  the  character  of  the  church,  and  ulti- 
mately destroy  it,  and  destroy  the  church  it- 
self. He  stated,  explicitly,  at  the  synod  held  at 
York,  that  although,  in  a  new  edition  of  his  com- 
mentary, he  had  modified  some  expressions,  and 
changed  some  of  the  language  which  he  understood 
had  given  offence,  he  had  not  altered  his  senti- 
ments. In  view  of  all  this,  what  prospect,  we  ask, 
is  there,  that  Mr.  Barnes  will  ever,  either  change 
his  opinions,  or  cease  to  propagate  them  as  exten- 
sively as  he  canl  Rarely,  indeed,  does  it  happeu, 
that  a  man  so  self-confident,  abandons  sentiments 
which  he  has  long  cherished,  and  which  have  be- 
come very  deeply  seated  in  his  mind ;  or  that  he 
ceases  to  inculcate  them  on  others,  as  often  as  an 
opportunity  to  do  it  is  afforded. 

The  charges  alleged  against  Mr.  Barnes  before 
the  Synod  were  the  following : — 

"  The  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  (said  the  prosecutor) 
is  hereby  charged  with  maintaining  the  following 
doctrines,  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  viz : 

1.  That,  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action. 
Witness  his  notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  pp. 
249, 123, 192, 124, 116. 

2.  That  Adam  (before  and  after  his  fall)  was 
ignorant  of  his  moral  relations  to  such  a  degree, 
that  he  did  not  know  the  consequences  of  his  sin 
would,  or  should,  reach  any  farther  than  to  natural 
death.     Idem.  p.  115. 

3.  That  unregenerate  men  are  able  to  keep  the 
commandments,  and  convert  themselves  to  God.  pp. 
164,  165,  108. 

4.  That  Faith  is  an  act  of  the  mind,  and  not  a 
principle ;  and  is  itself  imputed  for  righteousness, 
pp.  94,  95. 


Mr.  Barnes  is  also  charged  with  denying  the  fol- 
lowing doctrines,  which  are  taught  in  the  Standards 
of  the  Church :  viz. 

5.  That  God  entered  into  covenant  with  Adam, 
constituting  him  a  federal  or  covenant  head,  and 
representative  to  all  his  natural  descendants,  pp. 
114, 128,  111,  115,  120,  121, 128. 

6.  That  the  first  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his 
posterity,  pp.  10.  117,  117,  119,  121,  127,  128. 

7.  That  mankind  are  guilty,  i.  e.  liable  to  punish- 
ment, on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  pp.  123,  128. 

8.  That  Christ  suffered  the  proper  penalty  of  the 
law,  as  the  vicarious  substitute  of  his  people,  and 
thus  took  away  legally  their  sins,  and  purchased 
pardon.  Same  as  on  the  6th  and  7th  charges,  also 
pp.  89,  90. 

9.  That  the  righteousness,  i.  e,  the  active  obe- 
dience of  Christ  to  the  Law,  is  imputed  to  his  peo- 
ple for  their  justification,  so  that  they  are  righteous 
in  the  eye  of  the  law  and  therefore  justified,  pp. 
23,  84,  85,  94,  95, 127,  212. 

19.  Mr.  Barnes  also  teaches  in  opposition  to  the 
Standards,  that  justification  is  simply  pardon,  pp. 
28,  29,  110, 124,  127,  128,  182,  217. 

I  further  charge  Mr.  Barnes  with  teaching,  as 
referred  to  the  1st,  2d,  3d,  4th,  and  10th  of  the 
above  doctrines,  in  opposition  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures; and  with  denying  the  5th,  6th,  7th,  8th,  and 
9th,  of  the  above  specifications,  contrary  to  the 
Word  of  God." 

After  the  prosecutor  was  heard  in  support  of 
these  charges,  and  Mr.  Barnes  was  found  to 
persist  in  his  determination  to  make  no  reply, 
the  roll  was  called  'to  give  each  member  an 
opportunity  of  expressing  his  opinion  in  the  case.' 
After  the  roll  was  regularly  gone  through  '  a 
motion  was  made  that  the  appeal  be  sustained, 
and  the  decision  of  the  lower  judicatory  be  re- 
versed.' On  this  motion,  the  ayes  and  noes  were 
called,  and  ordered  to  be  recorded."  The  vote  was 
declared  to  stand,  ayes  142,  noes  16.  non  liquet  17. 
excused  1.  The  majority,  it  will  be  perceived,  on 
sustaining  the  charges  and  reversing  the  decision 
of  the  presbytery,  was  uncommonly  large — greater 
than  we  recollect  ever  to  have  known  on  so  im- 
portant and  interesting  a  question,  in  any  judica- 
ture of  our  church;  and  on  examining  the  list  of 
those  who  voted  in  the  negative  on  this  question, 
we  find  that  12  of  the  16  noes,  belonged  totbe 
synod  of  Delaware;  leaving  but  four  disinterested, 
and  absolute  negative  votes,  on  the  motion  to  sus- 
tain the  charges. 

A  committee  of  nine  members,  (consisting  of  six 
ministers  and  three  elders)  was  "appointed,  to 
draft  a  minute,  expressive  of  the  sense  of  synod  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes."  The  report  of  the  com- 
mittee contains  a  recital  of  the  constitutional 
ff rounds  on  which  the  synod  had  proceeded  in  the 
trial  of  this  case,  the  length  of  which  forbids,  we 
are  sorry  to  say,  its  insertion  at  large.  The  report 
concluded  with  rpcommending  for  the  adoption  of 
synod,  the  three  following  resolutions — 


16 


"Resolved,!.  That  in  view  of  the  proof  pre- 
sented to  Synod,  and  of  the  whole  case,  the  deci- 
sion of  the  (Assembly's)  2<1  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia, m  the  case  of  the  charges  of  the  said  Geo. 
Junkin  against  the  said  Albert  Barnes,  be  and  the 
same  hereby  is  reversed,  as  contrary  to  truth  and 
righteousness,  and  the  Appeal  declared  to  be  sus- 
tained. 

"  2.  That  some  of  the  errors  alleged  in  the 
ciiarges  to  be  held  by  the  said  Albert  Barnes  are 
fundamental ;  and  all  of  them  contrary  to  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the 
United  States  ;  and  that  they  do  contravene  the 
system  of  truth  therein  taught,  and  set  forth  in  the 
word  of  God. 

"3.  That  the  said  Albert  Barnes  be,  and  he 
hereby  is,  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  all  the 
functions  proper  to  the  gospel  ministry,  until  he 
shall  retract  the  errors  hereby  condemned,  and 
give  satisfactory  evidence  of  repentance." 

A  motion  was  made  to  strike  out  the  last  of  these 
resolutions,  and  to  insert  in  its  place  one,  by  which 
It  should  be  "  referred  to  the  next  General  Assembly 
to  decide  what  judgment  shall  be  rendered  in  this 
case;  and  respectfully  petition  them  to  pass  such 
sentence  as  they  may  deem  most  conducive  to  the 
glory  of  God,  and  the  purity  and  peace  of  the 
church."  This  motion  was  negatived  by  a  very 
large  majority,  and  after  adopting  the  third  resolu- 
tion as  it  stood  ;in  the  original  draft,  the  vote  was 
taken  on  the  whole;  and  the  ayes  and  nays  being 
called,  it  appeared  that  116  voted  in  the  affirmative, 
and  31  in  negative.  There  were  two  non-liquets. 
Eleven  members,  some  of  whom  had  been  excused 
from  voting,  and  others  who  had  voted  in  the  nega- 
tive on  the  resolution  suspending  Mr.  Barnes,  were 
permitted  to  enter  an  explanation  on  the  synodical 
records,  stating,  that  it  was  •'  to  avoid  even  the 
appearance  of  injustice  or  rashness,  on  the  part  of 
the  Synod,"  that  they  wished  to  refer  it  to  the 
Assembly,  "  to  decide  what  judgment  should  be 
rendered  in  this  case."  One  other  member,  who 
voted  in  the  negative,  was  permitted  to  enter  his 
explanation,  stating  that  he  had  doubted  the  right 
of  the  Synod  to  act  as  proposed  by  the  resolution  ; 
"and  that  he  would  have  preferred  sending  down 
this  case  to  the  Presbytery,  to  which  Mr.  Barnes 
might  belong,  with  instructions  to  suspend  him 
from  the  functions  of  the  Christian  ministry,  if  he 
should  not  renounce  his  errors."  We  are  thus 
particular,  that  all  pretence  of  unfairness,  in  this 
important  part  of  our  statement,  may  be  prevented. 
The  Presbytery  to  which  Mr.  Barnes  belongs  took 
an  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly,  against  "  the 
resolutions  of  Synod,  inflicting  censure  on  them, 
for  contumacy  in  refusing  to  submit  their  records." 
And  Mr.  Barnes  himself,  has  taken  an  appeal  from 
the  decision  "suspending  him  from  the  exercise  of 
the  funotions  of  a  gospel  minister,"  and  announced 
the  intention  also  to  complain,  (in  connection  with  his 
appeal,) ."  of  the  various  steps  by  which  the  Synod 
was  led  to  the  sentence  which  thev  hove  passed" — ' 


This  complaint,  and  the  reasons  of  it,  have  since 
been  spread  before  the  public.  It  is  made  a  ques- 
tion, which  the  Assembly  will  decide,  whether  a 
party  who  has  not  submitted  to  a  trial,  has  a  right 
to  appeal.  The  constitutional  rule  on  the  subject 
is  in  these  words — "  All  persons  who  have  submit- 
ted to  a  regular  trial  in  an  inferior,  may  appeal  to 
a  higher  jndiciary." 

Since  the  rising  of  the  Synod,  as  we  intimated 
in  the  introduction  of  this  address,  every  agency 
and  influence,  which  Mr.  Barnes  and  his  friends 
can  command,  have  been  put  into  vigorous  opera- 
tion, to  prejudice  the  public  mind  in  his  favour,  and 
against  the  synodical  decision  in  his  case;  in  h^ppe 
that  it  will  have  an  effect,  in  giving  character  to 
the  next  General  Assembly,  and  ensure  the  removal 
of  the  suspension  lo  which  he  has  been  subjected. 
But  we  doubt  not,  that  far  more  than  this  is  hoped 
for;  even  the  complete  undoing  of  the  whole  re- 
form, which  was  so  happily  commenced  by  the 
last  Assembly,  and  the  restoration  of  ihe  lost  pre- 
dominancy of  New  School  men  and  measures,  in 
the  supreme  judicatory  of  our  church.  We  have 
no  question  thai  it  is  believed,  and  we  confess 
we  think  the  belief  well  founded,  that  the  acquit-  , 
tal  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  the  reversal  of  many  of  the 
most  important  acts  of  the  last  Assembly,  must  go  ( 
together.  Indeed  the  acquittal  of  Mr.  Barnes  will  ' 
in  itself  be,  virtually,  a  reversal  of  the  strong  con-  i 
demnalion  of  certain  specified  errors  by  the  As- 
sembly of  last  May;  for  some  of  these  errors  are 
too  palpably  apparent  in  his  Commentary  on  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  to  admit  of  a  plausible  dis- 
guise. 

Besides  the  numerous  paragraphs  which  are 
incessantly  sent    abroad    in  the   public   papers, 
lauding  Mr.  Barnes  and  condemning  the  Synod 
that    suspended     him,   extra    Numbers    of    the 
Philadelphian    are  employed   to  carry   far  and 
wide  1.  His  defence  before  the  Presbytery,  with 
additions  suggested  by   what  took  place  at  the 
Synod.     2.  His  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
Synod  in  the  matter  of  his  suspension,  with  his 
reasons  for  that  appeal,  stated  at  great  length.  3. 
The  proceedings  of  the  Session  of  the  church  of 
which  he  is   the   pastor,   (the    first   Presbyterian 
church,  Philadelphia,)  containing,  after  an  intro- 
duction, seven  resolutions,  in  which,  among  other 
things,  it  is  affirmed  that  Mr.  Barnes  has  "  faith- 
fully preached  to  them  the  same  gospel  of  Jesu;? 
Christ  whicli  was  proclaimed  by  his  predecessor, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  James  P.  Wilson  ;"  that  "  the  laie 
unhappy  proceedings  of  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia, have  not,  in    the   least   degree,  diminished 
their  altaehment  to,  and  confidence  in  their  pre- 
sent pastor;  and  that  ihey  concur  wilh  the  Board 
of  Trustees  in  their  request  to  call  a  special  meei- 
ing  of  thecongrpgaliMu."  for  a  purpose  which  the 
trustees  had   previously   specified  ;  and  that  tho 
resolutions    passed,    be    read     publicly    in    the 
church  on  the  next  Lord's  day.     4.  The  proceed- 
ings of  the  Congregational  Meeting,  caMed  by  the 


17 


concurring  voice  of  the  Trustees  and  Session — 
containing  six  resolutions,  "adopted  unanimously, 
with  the  exception  of  the  third  and  fourth,  to 
which  there  were  four  or  fi»e  dissenting  votes." 
These  resolutions,  beside  re-echoing  those  of  the 
Session,  went  much  farther  than  the  Session,  in 
condemning,  and  protesting  against  the  doings  of 
the  Synod  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes — so  that  it 
appears,  that  three  or  four  members  could  not  go 
the  lengih  of  the  majority.  The  proceedings  of 
the  church  in  the  Northern  Liberties,  of  which 
Mr.  Patterson  is  pastor,  published  also  in  the 
Philadelphian,  are  too  extravagant  to  claim  a  se- 
rious notice. 

Here,  surely,  is  a  novelty  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Sessions  and  Congregations,  under  the 
rare  and  supervision  of  a  Synod,  arraigning  and 
condemning,  in  unmeasured  terms,  proceeding? 
of  that  Synod,  sanctioned  by  a  larger  majority 
than  was  ever  witnessed  in  that  body,  on  any 
other  litigated  subject;  and  not  only  so,  but  ad- 
dressing the  whole  church,  with  a  manifest 
intention,  to  engage  the  court  of  the  last  resort 
to  favour  an  appellant,  whose  cause  is  yet 
pending,  and  the  plea  of  the  prosecutor  not 
heard  ;  giving  withal  an  ex  parte  statement  of  the 
whole  proceedings,  and  making  an  array  of  hos- 
tile exhibitions  against  the  Synod,  as  if  intended 
to  intimidate  and  overawe  the  judicatory  that  is  to 
pronounce  a  final  judgment,  in  confirmation  or  re- 
versal of  one  of  the  most  solemn  and  important 
decisions  that  a  court  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
can  ever  make.  Are  such  proceedings  as  these  to 
avail  for  the  benefit  and  gratification  of  those  who 
adopt  them?  The  answer — ^yea  or  nay — ^will  be 
given  by  the  next  Assembly.  Most  sincerely  do 
we  regret  the  necessity  to  which,  we  have  been 
reduced,  of  either  permitting  such  unwarrantable 
measures  to  produce  (in  all  probability)  an  effect 
siratlai  to  the  one  that  was  witnessed  in  18S1,  or 
by  a  counter  statement,  to  endeavour  to  prevent 
so  disastrous  a  result. 

We  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  Mr.  Barnes  and 
his  people  through  their  voluminous  statements 
and  pleadings.  Let  them  stand  for  what  they 
are  vvorlh,  after  a  few  brief  remarks.  No  one  can 
fail  to  observe  the  tendency,  and  no  doubt  the  in- 
tention, of  what  Mr,  Barnes  says  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  his  defence,*  to  excite  prejudice  against 
his  prosecutor,  for  bringing  charges  against  him. 
Butletit  be  remembered  that  when  he  and  Dr.  Jun 
kin  were  members  of  the  same  Presbytery,  he  in- 
sisted that  if  he  was  made  responsible  for  the 
doctrines  of  his  sermon,  it  should  be  done  in  no 
other  way  than  by  tabling  charges  against  him 
He  declared  his  readiness  to  meet  such  charges — 
he  even  invited  them.     And  the  ground  he  then 


*  The  inconsistency  between  the  introduolion  and 
the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Barnes'  defence  is  truly  surpris- 
ing.  In  the  conclusion,  he  bears  an  explicit  testimony, 
as  his  Presbytery  had  previously  done,  to  the  Christian 
spirit  with  whicli  Dr.  Junkin  conducted  his  prosecution. 


took  has  been  that  which  has  always  been  taken 
by  his  parly  since.  It  was  taken  by  that  party, 
then  dominant,  in  the  General  Assembly  of  1834. 
From  every  quarter  of  the  church,  we  have 
heard  it  asked  by  New  School  m«n,  why  do  yoo 
not  bring  charges  against  the  individuals  who, 
you  say,  are  corrupting  the  churchT  Try  them 
before  their  own  Presbyteries;  the  way  is  open; 
we  want  no  new  rules;  bring  your  charges  before 
the  proper  judicatures,  and  let  them  take  the  con- 
stitutional course,  and  all  will  be  right.  But  now 
when  they  are  taken  at  their  word,  when  their  oft 
repeated  demand  and  challenge  are  met,  there  is  a 
grievous  complaint  of  unkindness;  of  not  obey- 
ing the  Gospel  injunction  of  private  remonstrance, 
manifestly  intended  only  for  cases  of  individual  of- 
fence and  injury  ;  and  of  omitting  to  mention  the 
equivocal  word  heresy,  when  the  prosecution  is 
commenced. 

We  feel  constrained  to  say  a  few  words,  in  reply 
to  the  following  allegation  of  the  Session  and 
congregation,  in  the  praise  they  bestow  on  Mr 
Barnes,  viz  :  "Our  beloved  pastor,  the  Rev.  Al- 
bert Barnes,  ever  since  he  has  performed  the  du- 
ties of  a  spiritual  shepherd  among  us,  bas  faith- 
fully preached  the  same  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
which  was  proclaimed  to  us  by  his  predecessor, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  James  P.  Wilson." — Then  follows  a 
specification  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  gos- 
pel, as  delivered  to  the  congregation  by  both  pas- 
tors. The  manifest  design  of  this  is,  to  identify 
Mr.  Barnes  with  Dr.  Wilson,  so  that  if  you  con- 
demn the  former,  you  must  condemn  the  latter  al- 
so. It  is  extremely  painful  to  us  to  say  any 
thing  on  this  delicate  point;  but  we  owe  it  to 
the  truth  and  to  the  church,  to  meet  it  fairly.  In 
doing  so,  we  are  disposed  to  believe  that  the  ses- 
sion and  congregation  who  have  affirmed  as  above, 
must  have  either  forgotten  a  part  of  what  they 
heard  from  Dr.  Wilson,  or  misapprehended  much 
that  they  have  heard  from  Mr.  Barnes.  The  learn-^ 
ed  and  pious  pastor  to  whom  Mr.  Barnes  has  suc- 
ceeded, was  not  a  man  to  preach  in  one  way,  and 
to  write  and  publish  in  another;  and  it  so  hap- 
pens, that  we  have  his  printed  and  published  sen- 
timents on  most  of  the  points  in  which  we 
think  his  successor  is  erroneous  ;  and  therefore 
have  all  the  advantages  possessed  by  the  parties 
who  make  the  allegation  on  which  we  remark,  in 
deciding  what  were  the  real  opinionsof  Dr.  Wilson, 
on  the  points  in  question.  During  bis  life  and  un- 
der his  auspices,  a  new  edition  of  Ridgeley's  Body 
of  Divinity  was  published  in  Philadelphia,  on 
several  parts  of  which  he  wrote  copious  notes. 
Not  long  before  his  death,  moreover,  he  preached 
a  sermon,  and  afterward  enlarged  it  into  an  essay 
of  considerable  length,  and  published  it,,  with  the 
avowed  design  of  leaving  it  to  his  people,  as  a 
kind  of  legacy,  containino  an  exhibition  of  the 
leading  doctrines  of  the  gn6pel,.as  held  andtaught 
by  him.  From  these  two  publications,  viz  :  his 
noteti  on  Ridgely  and  his  essd-y,.it  caa  be  demon- 


18 


Blrainrely  proved,  that  he  differed  from  Mr.  Barnes 
on  every  important  point,  on  which  Mr.  Barnes 
13  now  charged  with  error;  and  that  he  also  differ- 
ed on  one  important  point,  on  which  Dr.  Junkin 
has  omitted  to  charge  him  with  error,  namely,t 
the  eternal  sonskip  of  the  Lord  .lesiis  Christ, 
which  Mr.  Barnes  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Ro- 
mans, unequivocally  denies,  and  Dr. Wilson,  in  ac- 
cordance with  our  public  Standards,  firmly  main- 
tained. Nothincr  but  the  limits  to  which  we  are  eon- 
fined,  prevents  our  proving  in  detail  what  we  have 
here  asserted,  by  plain  and  pointed  quotations 
from  the  publications  of  Dr.  Wilson,  contrasted 
with  similar  ones  from  those  of  Mr.  Barnes— and 
this,  if  found  necessary,  shall  be  done  hereafter. 
It  is  due  to  the  memory  of  Dr.  Wilson,  that  he 
should  not  be  identified  with  Mr.  Barnes  in  his 
errors. 

CONCLUSION. 

Fathers,  brethren,  and  fellow  Christians  . If  we 

know  ourselves  at  all,  it  is  not  from  any  malig- 
nant feeling  toward  Mr.  Barnes,  nor  from  any  am- 
bitious desire  of  victory,  in  a  conflict  in  which  we 
have  been  engaged,  that,  at  such  length,  we  have 
addressed  you.  It  is,  as  we  have  already  intimat- 
ed,because,  in  a  crisis  of  our  ecclesiastical  affairs, 
which  we  sincerely  and  solemnly  believe  will  re- 
sult either  in  good  or  evil,  of  the  most  extensive 
and  lasting  kind,  our  religious  community  is  with- 
out the  knowledge  and  information  necessary  to 
guide  it  right.  Action,  fatally  erroneous,  even 
when  the  best  dispositions  are  possessed,  may 
proceed  from  mere  ignorance  of  important  facts — 
from  mistakes,  arising  from  wrong  or  imperfect 
views  of  the  subject  which  calls  for  action.  In 
the  ordering  of  providence,  it  has  been  our  lot  to 
be  placed  in  circumstances  in  which  we  have  been 
obliged— unwillingly  and  painfully  obliged— to  be 
familiar  with  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  from  its  ori- 
gin to  the  present  hour ;  and  we  have  felt  ourselves 
under  an  obligation  from  which  we  could  not  es- 
cape with  a  clear  conscience,  to  spread  what  we 
know  before  our  brethren  of  the  Presbyterian 
church — that  they  may  not  act  under  the  influence 


t  In  piiges  LI,  16,  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  Mr.  Barnes  thus  writes — "It  is  not 
affirmed  tliat  this  title  (Son  of  God)  was  given  to  the 
second  person  in  the  'I'rinity  before  he  became  incar- 
riatr,  or  to  suggest  the  idta  of  any  derivation  on  extrac- 
Hon  before  he  was  made  flesh.  There  is  no  instance  in 
which  the  apptllation  is  not  conferred  to  express  his 
relation  nj'ler  he  assun)cd  human  flesh.  Of  any  ditri. 
ration  from  (iod,  or  emanation  from  him  in  eternity, 
the  Scriptures  are  silent."  The  words  marked  as  em- 
phatic  were  so  marked  by  Mr.  Barnes  himself.  Com- 
pare  the  above  quotation  with  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
Chap.  II,  Sect.  III.  "The  Katlier  is.  of  none,  neither 
bcffotten  nor  preccdiiigf ;  ihc  Son  is  eternally  bejjotten 
of  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  (ibost  eternally  |>rocce(iinjr 
i'rotn  the  Father  and  the  Son."  See  the  same — Laro-er 
Catechism,  in  answer  to  the  10th  question. 


of  the  delusive  representations  which  he  and  his 
friends  are  so  industriously  sending  into  every 
part  of  our  land.     We  think  we  havt-  shown— 

1.  That  the  prosecutors  of  Mr.  Barnes  have 
not  been  his  persecutors,-  that  they  have  had,  and 
securely  could  have,  no  other  motive  in  striving 
to  arrest  his  devious  course,  and  prevent  the 
prevalence  of  the  unsound  doctrine  he  has  taught, 
than  the  discharge  of  a  sacred  duly,  which  t  lev 
owed  to  God,  to  his  truth,  and  to  his  church- 
duty  inforced  by  the  solemn  sanction  of  ordina- 
tion vows. 

2.  We  have  shown  that  the  errors  of  Mr. 
Barnes  are  fundamental  errors.  That  he  is  chrrije. 
able,  not  as  has  been  pretended,  with  merely  uSmg 
some  new  words  and  phrases,  to  express  the  very 
doctrines  of  our  standards,  but  with  a  real  and 
wide  departure  from,  or  rather  a  direct  opposition 
to  what  is  taught  in  those  standards;  and  this  in 
matters  vital  to  the  whole  system  of  evangelical 
truth,  and  affecting  the  weal  or  wo  of  immortal 
souls.     Hence, 

3.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  controversy  in 
regard  to  Mr.  Barnes  is  not  a  mere  local  concern, 
but  one  in  which  the  whole  Presbyterian  church 
is  as  really,  and  deeply,  if  not  so  immediately 
interested,  as  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  and  il's 
subordinate  judicatories.  It  has  been  shown,  thai 
this  controversy  has  been  connected  with  a  change 
of  the  character  of  the  supreme  judicatory  of  the 
Presbyterian  church;  a  change,  in  consequence 
of  which,  that  judicatory,  in  place  of  acting  as 
formerly,  as  the  guardian  of  the  purity  and  peace 
of  the  church,  and  the  palladium  of  her  disci- 
pline, has,  for  years  in  succession,  protected  the 
corruptors  of  the  church — the  propagators  of  false 
doctrine  of  the  most  baneful  character;  and  by 
creating  an  elective  Presbytery  and  Synod,  as 
well  as  by  other  unconstitutional  acts,  has  pros- 
trated all  effective  discipline,  and  really  organ- 
ized bodies  in  which  the  disorderly  and  unsound 
in  doctrine  might  find  a  refuge,  and  by  which  a 
systematic  warfare  has  been  carried  on,  against 
the  adherents  to  the  orthodox  faith,  which  has 
destroyed  their  peace,  and  filled  the  church  with 
confusion  and  discord. 

4.  We  think  it  worthy  of  the  most  special  no- 
tice, that  it  is  the  manifest  aim  of  Mr.  Barnes 
and  his  friends,  to  turn  away  the  attention  of  the 
public  mind,  from  the  nature  and  merits  of  ihe 
cause  at  issue,  and  fix  it  on  the  personal  cha- 
racter of  the  man,  and  the  unpleasant  circum- 
stances in  which  he  has  unhappily  involved  him- 
self. With  this  view,  hi&  amiable  private  de- 
portment, and   his  religious  zeal  are  proclaimed 

and  eulogized.     But  we  do  entreat  our  brethren 

we  do  not  now  say  to  do  us  the  justice,  but  to  do 
themselves  and  the  church  of  God  the  justice,  to 
separate  this  cause  altogether  from  the  individual 
whom  it  more  immediateiy  aflecls.  We  admit, 
without  the  least  reluctance,  that  Mr.  Harnes  ia 
amiable  in  his  private  character,  and  that  he  i* 


19 


apparently  zealous  in  religion.  But  he  is  in  no 
respect  more  so,  than  was  Pelagius,  some  of 
whose  most  objectionable  sentiments  he  unques- 
tionably holds,  and  endeavours  to  propagate. 
The  unimpeachable  character,  and  apparent  zeal- 
ous piety  of  Pelagius,  secured  him  for  a  time, 
even  from  the  penetrating  scrutiny  of  Augustine — 
from  the  very  man  who  afterwards  so  nobly  and 
successfully  exposed  and  confuted  his  pernicious 
errors — errors  which  Augustine  has  most  conclu- 
sively shown,  sap  the  foundations  of  evangelical 
truth  and  vital  godliness.  Arminius,  too,  was 
la  amiable  and  zealous,  as  well  as  a  very  learned 
man.  Yet  he  gave  rise  to  a  system  of  wide 
spread  error,  which  remains  to  the  present  day ; 
and  by  endeavouring  to  propagate  it,  while  he 
lived,  he  introduced  contention,  confusion,  and 
disorder  into  the  whole  Calvinistic  church  of  the 
United  Netherlands,  till  it  was  condemned  and 
its  influence  arrested,  by  the  Synod  of  Dort.  If 
we  act  as  faithful  watchmen  on  the  walls  oi 
Zion,  we  must  distinguish  between  men  and  a 
cause.  Again,  therefore,  we  entreat  our  brethren, 
to  look  away  from  the  individuals  who  will  be 
mmediately  concerned  in  the  cause  which  will 
go  up  to  the  next  General  Assembly,  Look  away 
from  us,  as  well  as  from  Mr.  Barnes  and  his  co- 
adjutors; and  examine  carefully  and  conscienti- 
OJsly  for  yourselves,  brethren,  whether  there  is 
not  a  system  concerned  in  this  controversy,  which, 
if  it  prevail,  will  change  the  whole  character  of 
our  church;  a  system  which,  while  it  is  bad  in 
itself,  all  experience  shows,  has  a  strong  ten- 
dency to  something  worse  than  itself — to  avowed 
Uniiarianism,  with  all  its  soul  ruining  delusions. 
5.  The  statement  we  have  made  shows,  we 
think  undeniably,  who  have  been  Ihe  culpable  dis- 
turbers rf  the  peace  of  our  church.  For  twenty 
years  after  the  formation  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, the  Presbyterian  church  enjoyed  a  state  of 
tiie  most  enviable  unity  and  harmony.  The 
meetings  of  her  judicatories,  from  the  lowest  to 
the  highest,  were  seasons  for  the  most  delight- 
ful fraternal  intercourse;  they  were  looked  for- 
ward to  with  joyful  anticipation,  and  were  pro- 
ductive of  high  pleasure  and  much  edification. 
What  has  changed  this  happy  state]  What,  in 
place  of  peace  and  concord,  has  filled  our  church 
with  jars,  alienation,  reviling,  and  contention. 
Can  any  other  cause  be  justly  assigned,  than  the 
coming  in  among  us  of  men  and  principles,  not 
friendly  to  the  genius  of  our  ecclesiastical  sys- 
tem ;  men  and  principles  really  opposed  to  the 
doctrines  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  form 
of  church  government?  Here,  unquestionably,  is 
the  true  source  of  the  grievous  evils  that  afflict 
us.  No  other  cause  can  be  pointed  out,  which 
can,  even  plausibly,  account  for  the  existing 
facts.  Who  then  has  destroyed  the  peace  of  the 
church  ■?  Have  not  they  done  it,  who,  after  having 
been  (more  kindly  than  discreetly)  admitted  into 
the  bosom  of  our  once  united  and  happy  family, 


have  insisted  on  acting  in  it  just  as  they  pleased, 
without  regard  to  its  established  principles 
and  order;  nay,  who  have  sought  to  take  the 
whole  management  of  the  household  into  their 
own  hands,  and  even  to  turn  the  original  occu- 
pants out  of  their  own  house,  unless  they  would 
quietly  submit  to  the  innovations  of  their  guests. 
Are  not  the  innovators,  we  ask,  the  destroyers  of 
the  peace  of  the  family,  and  not  they  who  resist 
them?  The  resistance  may  be  the  occasion,  but 
the  innovators  are  the  criminal  cause  of  all  the 
confusion,  noise,  and  contention  which  has  been 
produced. 

6.  The  statement  we  have  made  shows  how 
unspeakably  important  will  be  the  measures 
adopted  by  the  next  General  Assembly.  Those 
measures  will  unavoidably  give  predominance  to 
the  one  or  the  other  of  the  parties  which  now  di- 
vide the  Church:  and  if  the  New  School  party 
shall  dictate  these  measures — if  that  parly  shall 
annul  the  decision  of  the  Synod  in  the  case  of 
Mr.  Barnes,  (which  they  certainly  will  do,  if  they 
can  ;)  if  they  shall  turn  back  the  reform  which 
was  commenced  by  the  last  Assembly,  and  re- 
verse the  decisions  made  by  that  body  on  several 
important  points  of  constitutional  law  and  order; 
and  if,  as  heretofore,  they  shall  refuse  to  sustain 
discipline,  and  shall  provide  for  the  protection  of 
errorists  of  almost  every  name,  short  of  unitarian- 
ism,— then  will  all  the  distractions  which  our 
Church  has  experienced  from  1830  to  1835,  re- 
turn, with  augmented  force  and  aciimony.  On 
the  other  hand — if  orthodoxy  shall  sway  the  next 
Assembly,  as  it  did  the  last,— if  discipline  for 
errors  then  condemned,  shall  be  sustained,  by 
confirming  what  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  have 
done  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes  ;  if  other  cases  of 
just  discipline  that  may  come  before  our  highest 
ecclesiastical  court,  shall  be  faithfully  and"  dis- 
creetly borne  out ;  and  a  well  tempered  firmness 
be  manifested  to  maintain  our  Standards  of  doc- 
trine and  church  order,  in  their  integrity,  purity, 
and  genuine  spirit— ,then  will  contention  in  our 
Church,  we  verily  believe,  be  nearly  at  an  end, 
and  our  peace  wil  begin  to  "  flow  as  a  river." 
Some,  it  niay  be,  will  withdraw  from  our  connec- 
tion ;  but  it  will  be  of  individuals  or  judicatures 
that  will  promote  both  our  comfort  and  their  own, 
by  leaving  us.  It  should,  therefore,  be  kept  in 
mind,  that  every  vote,  given  for  a  commissioner  to 
the  next  Assembly,  should  be  cast,  under  a 
weighty  sense  of  responsibility  for  its  going  to  the 
election  of  the  best  and  wisest  eligible  m'an  that 
the  voter  can  select ;  and  every  commissioner  ap- 
pointed, should  feel  an  equal  responsibility,  to 
overcome  every  hinderance,  not  insurmountable, 
which  might  prevent  his  attendance  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  Session,  and  his  continuance  through 
the  whole. 

7.  Finally.  Our  hope  is  in  God.  We  desire 
that  our  own  minds  and  the  mind  of  every  reader 
of  this  address,  may  be  deeply  and  solemnly  im- 


20 


pressed,  with  a  sense  of  our  entire  dependence  on 
the  divine  interposition,  to  restore  purity  and  peace 
to  our  beloved,  back-slidden  and  bleeding  church. 
For  Ofurselves,  we  have  formed  an  association  for  a 
concert  of  prayer;  each  individual  agreeing  that, 
at  an  appointed  hour  on  Saturday  evening,  he  will, 
in  his  private  retirement,  go  to  tlie  throne  of  grace, 
especially  to  supplicate,  in  the  name  of  the  Great 
Intercessor,  that  a  heavenly  influence  may  descend 
and  rest  on  the  next  General  Assembly — to  en- 
lighten all  its  counsels,  and  to  bring  every  discus- 
sion to  that  result  which  shall  be  most  pleasing  to 
God,  and  most  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  our 
church :  and  also,  for  a  copious  effusion,  on  all  our 
churches  and  congregations,  of  the  Spirit  of  all 
grace,  that  pure  and  undefiled  religion  may  be  re- 
vived, the  children  of  God  be  quickened,  and  genu- 


ine converts  be  multiplied  "  like  drops  of  morning' 
dew."  May  we  be  permitted,  respectfully  to  re- 
commend something  of  this  kind,  to  all  our  brethren. 
We  verily  believe,  that  it  was  in  answer  to  much 
fervent  prayer,  that  the  last  General  Assembly  were 
led  to  the  salutary  measures  they  adopted  ;  and  it 
is  more,  far  more,  on  a  similar  answer  to  'prayer, ' 
than  on  any  thing  and  every  thing  beside,  that  we 
look  for  a  happy  result  of  the  deliberations  of  that 
judicatory,  at  their  next  meeting— Brethren,  fare- 
well. Receive  our  address  kindly,  and  examine 
it  candidly ;  and  may  He  who  has  the  hearts  of  all 
men  in  his  hand,  give  it  that  impression  on  your 
minds,  which  he  shall  see  to  be  most  for  his  glory, 
and  for  the  establishment  and  triumph  of  th« 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 


J 


I 


i 


^ATE  DUF 


^igj-^i^y. 


«Jg§v'«'^^s^,^V-y" 


'^rr-^'uz. 


